Note: This video is quite lengthy (over one hour). Your author recommends playing a selected excerpt of the video to give students an understanding as to how oral arguments take place before the U.S. Supreme Court—the Supreme Court does not permit filming oral argument, thus the cartoon depictions—and to give them a feel for the arguments presented by the respective litigants.

One American Took the Postal Service to Court

According to the article, Frustrated by missing mail, one American took the Postal Service to court, as a general rule, it is difficult to sue the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) for lost, delayed or mishandled mail.

But a case before the U.S. Supreme Court involving a Texas landlord who alleges her mail was deliberately withheld for two years is looking to challenge that, in a proceeding the cash-strapped USPS says could prompt a deluge of lawsuits over the very common, if frustrating, phenomenon of missing mail. That concern takes on particular resonance during the holiday season, when the volume of mail — billions of sentimental items from Christmas cards to Black Friday purchases — ramps up.

The Case

The case focuses on whether the special postal exemption to the Federal Tort Claims Act applies when postal employees intentionally fail to deliver letters and packages.

“Tons of Suits about Mail”

“We’re going to be faced with, I think, a ton of suits about mail,” Frederick Liu, assistant to the Solicitor General for the Department of Justice, warned the justices during oral arguments last month. 

He predicted that if the landlord wins the case, people will infer their mail did not arrive “because of a rude comment that they heard, or what have you.”

The Federal Tort Claims Act and Its Exceptions

The federal tort law allows a private individual to sue the federal government for monetary damages if a federal employee hurts them or damages their property by acting negligently.

But Congress created multiple exceptions to the law, including one for the Postal Service, shielding it from lawsuits over missing or late mail. The exception says the post office cannot be sued for “loss, miscarriage or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.” Definitions of those words have become the crux of the case before the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court Hears the Case

Last month, some justices appeared to question the government’s claim that the USPS is shielded from such lawsuits. But concern was expressed about opening the doors to frivolous litigation. Justice Samuel Alito suggested people might believe carriers intentionally did not deliver mail because they did not receive a tip at Christmas or they were scared by a “big dog that ran up to the door.”

“What will the consequences be if all these suits are filed and they have to be litigated?” Alito asked. “Is the cost of a first-class letter going to be $3 now?”

Easha Anand, a lawyer for the landlord, has accused the government of “fearmongering about endless litigation.” She argued it is unusual for someone to experience the level of mistreatment Lebene Konan did and contends the USPS would still retain immunity for most postal matter-related harms even if the court rules in the landlord’s favor.

“These sorts of allegations, I think, will be rare,” she said in court.

Konan’s Allegations

Konan, a landlord, real estate agent and insurance agent, claims two employees at a post office in Euless, Texas, part of the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, deliberately did not deliver mail belonging to her and her tenants because she alleges they did not like that she is Black and owns multiple properties.

According to court documents, the dispute began when Konan discovered the mailbox key for one of her rental properties had been changed without her knowledge, preventing her from collecting and distributing tenants’ mail from the box. When she contacted the local post office, she was told she wouldn’t receive a new key or regular delivery until she proved she owned the property. She did so, the documents say, but the mail problems continued, despite the USPS Inspector General instructing the mail to be delivered.

Konan alleges the employees marked some of the mail as undeliverable or return to sender. Konan and her tenants failed to receive important mail such as bills, medications and car titles, according to the lawsuit. Konan also claims she lost rental income because some tenants moved out due to the situation.

After filing dozens of complaints with postal officials, Konan finally filed a lawsuit under the 1946 Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which has now made its way to the nation's highest court. A decision in the case is expected to be issued next year.

Procedural History

While a federal district court in Texas dismissed Konan's FTCA claims, arguing they fell under the postal exemption, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed part of that decision last year.

The judges disagreed with the lower court's determination that Konan's claims were precluded because they arose out of a “loss” or a “miscarriage.” Rather, the judges said Konan's case does not fall into one of those “limited situations” because it involved the intentional act of not delivering the mail.

“Because the conduct alleged in this case does not fall squarely within the exceptions for ‘loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission,’ sovereign immunity does not bar Konan’s FTCA claims,” the judges wrote.

The appellate court sided with the lower court's decision to dismiss Konan's separate claim against the individual postal workers.

The USPS appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The American Enterprise Institute Weighs In

Kevin Kosar, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a public policy think tank, who studies postal matters, said he believes it is incorrect for the government to argue the postal exemption covers the intentional failure to deliver mail.

Kosar said he also doubts there will be a deluge of lawsuits if the court rules narrowly in the case, questioning whether aggrieved postal customers could even find an attorney willing to sue the USPS.

Kosar asked: “What lawyer, for example, wants to file a suit and spends years in the courts because someone spent 78 cents on a first-class stamp and their letter got lost?”

Discussion Questions

  1. Describe the Federal Tort Claims Act and its associated postal exemption.

    The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) is a 1946 law that allows private citizens to sue the U.S. government for certain wrongful acts committed by federal employees, thereby waiving the government’s traditional “sovereign immunity” from such claims.

    The postal exemption to the FTCA is a specific “carve-out” in the law that limits when the U.S. government can be sued for damages related to postal operations. 

    According to 28 U.S.C. Section 2680(b), “any claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter” is barred. Simply put, if a customer’s mail is lost, delayed, or delivered to the wrong address, or damaged in transit, the customer cannot sue the federal government under the FTCA.

  2. As indicated in the article, according to Frederick Liu, assistant to the Solicitor General for the Department of Justice, during oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2025, “(w)e’re going to be faced with, I think, a ton of suits about mail.” Mr. Liu is referencing the possibility of frivolous litigation. Assess the legitimacy of this concern. 

    In your author’s opinion, this litigation will not translate into a “ton” of suits about mail. 

    First, there are numerous procedural laws that would prohibit such claims from reaching a jury trial (the failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a judgment on the pleadings, or a summary judgment, to name a few). 

    Second, the subject case, which would establish specific judicial precedent, relates to the intentional non-delivery of letters and packages due to alleged racial discrimination. In your author’s opinion, the vast majority of non-delivery scenarios relate to negligence (such claims are barred by the so-called postal exemption to the FTCA), with only a small percentage of cases relating to intentional non-delivery (and an even smaller percentage of cases relating to intentional non-delivery due to race discrimination).

  3. In your reasoned opinion, who should win this lawsuit, and why?

    This is an opinion question, so student responses may vary. 

    Your author supports the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

    As indicated in the article, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (the intermediate appellate court) disagreed with the lower court's determination that Konan's claims were precluded because they arose out of a “loss” or a “miscarriage.” Rather, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said Konan's case does not fall into one of those “limited situations” because it involved the intentional act of not delivering the mail. According to the intermediate appellate court, “Because the conduct alleged in this case does not fall squarely within the exceptions for ‘loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission,’ sovereign immunity does not bar Konan’s FTCA claims.”

    Obviously, if the U.S. Supreme Court affirms the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, it will still be the plaintiff’s burden of proof to establish at trial, based on the greater weight of the evidence, that the U.S. Postal Service failed to deliver her letters and packages due to intentional, race-based discrimination.