The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit, which had ruled the USPS was not immune.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Postal Service cannot be sued under federal law for missing, lost, or undelivered mail, even in cases where nondelivery is intentional.

The decision centers on whether intentional nondelivery, potentially motivated by discrimination, falls within the Federal Tort Claims Act exemption for the USPS.

Plaintiff Lebene Konan, a Texas landlord and real estate/insurance agent, alleged two USPS employees deliberately withheld tenants’ mail for two years due to racial prejudice against her as a Black property owner.

Konan claimed mail was marked undeliverable or returned to sender, causing missed bills, medications, car titles, and rental income, despite attempts to resolve the issue with postal officials and directives from the USPS Inspector General.

The article includes standard AP copyright notes and references ongoing coverage of the Supreme Court.

Justice Sotomayor argued that, even if more lawsuits could arise, the Court should not override Congress’s text, and noted more rulings are anticipated this term.

During oral arguments, Justices highlighted the potential flood of lawsuits if the exemption were narrowly read, given the USPS handles over 100 billion pieces of mail annually and millions of delivery points.

The majority consisted of Justices Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Thomas; the dissent, led by Sotomayor and joined by Kagan, Gorsuch, and Jackson, said the law’s language includes negligence and would shield only non-negligent conduct if read narrowly.

The piece notes ongoing USPS delivery challenges and mentions a nationwide test of first-class mail speed ahead of Election Day, underscoring concerns about mail reliability as vote-by-mail rises.

Debate over accountability and potential litigation against the USPS was shaped by broader funding and operational challenges facing the service.

Dissenters, including Justice Sotomayor and joined by others, argued the decision broadens the USPS exemption and undermines protection against discrimination-driven nondelivery.