Supreme Court Case Challenges USPS Immunity Over Delayed Mail

Fri Dec 05 2025 06:41:47 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

A Texas landlord's lawsuit against the U.S. Postal Service could redefine the legal boundaries concerning claims related to lost or delayed mail, particularly as the holiday season approaches.

As the U.S. Supreme Court hears a case from a Texas landlord alleging that postal employees intentionally withheld her mail for two years, the outcome could pave the way for new litigation against the USPS. Currently, the Postal Service is shielded from lawsuits over missing mail, but challenges to this immunity are being brought forward. With the holiday season increasing mail volumes, the implications of this case could have significant effects on both consumers and the postal system.

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — It is typically challenging to sue the U.S. Postal Service for issues involving lost, delayed, or mishandled mail. However, a pivotal case before the U.S. Supreme Court involving a Texas landlord who claims her mail was intentionally withheld for a two-year period seeks to challenge this norm. The financially strapped Postal Service warns that a ruling against it could lead to a flood of lawsuits about common mail issues, particularly salient during the holiday season when many people rely on the postal system for critical deliveries.

The case hinges on whether the special exemption enjoyed by the Postal Service under the Federal Tort Claims Act applies in instances where postal employees deliberately fail to deliver. During oral arguments last month, Frederick Liu, a lawyer for the Justice Department, expressed concern that a victory for the landlord could result in a surge of litigation over mail delivery failures.

“We could see a ton of suits about mail,” he mentioned, suggesting that individuals might believe their mail did not arrive due to personal grievances or other unrelated issues.

The Federal Tort Claims Act allows individuals to sue the federal government for damages caused by negligent actions of federal employees. However, Congress has established multiple exceptions to this law, one of which allows the Postal Service to evade lawsuits over the “loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission” of postal items, which are critical definitions in this case.

Last month, some justices appeared skeptical of the government’s stance on the immunity enjoyed by USPS, although concerns were raised regarding the potential for an influx of frivolous lawsuits if the ruling were to lean against the Postal Service. Justice Samuel Alito questioned what the fallout of such a ruling might entail, considering whether the postage costs might escalate.

A two-year ordeal over mail delivery

Easha Anand, the landlord’s attorney, accused the government of exaggerating the fears surrounding extensive litigation, stating that cases like this are not typically prevalent. The landlord, Lebene Konan, claims that two postal employees in Euless, Texas, the Dallas-Fort Worth area, deliberately failed to deliver her mail due to racial prejudices against her as a Black property owner.

The conflict began when the mailbox key of one of her rental properties was changed without notification, hindering her ability to collect or distribute her tenants’ mail. After numerous complaints, including an investigation by the USPS Inspector General, the mail problems persisted, leading to the lawsuit.

According to court records, Konan asserts that postal employees misclassified essential mail as undeliverable or returned them to senders. Consequently, she and her tenants missed critical correspondence, which included bills and medical prescriptions. This disruption allegedly resulted in loss of rental income as some tenants vacated due to the mail issues.

Deciding on the postal exemption

Initially, a federal district court dismissed Konan's claims, citing the postal exemption under the FTCA as the reason. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit later reversed part of that ruling, arguing that the claims did not adequately fall under the definitions of “loss” or “miscarriage,” particularly since they involved intentional negligence.

The USPS has appealed the case to the Supreme Court, where a final decision is anticipated in the upcoming year. Legal experts debate whether this ruling might lead to a surge in claims against the Postal Service, questioning if aggrieved customers could even find legal representation willing to pursue such cases.