Written By: Evan Breitbeck
What Is United States Postal Service v. Konan and Why Does It Matter?
On February 24, 2026, the United States Supreme Court decided United States Postal Service v. Konan, a case addressing the scope of sovereign immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) is immune from suit for claims alleging intentional nondelivery of mail under the FTCA’s “postal exception.”
Enacted in 1946, the FTCA waives the federal government’s sovereign immunity for certain tort claims, allowing individuals to sue the United States for damages caused by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. However, that waiver is not absolute. Congress carved out several exceptions in 28 U.S.C. § 2680, preserving immunity in specified circumstances. One such carve-out, commonly referred to as the “postal exception,” bars claims “arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.”
The case emerged from a conflict between a landlord and postal workers in Euless, Texas. The plaintiff in Konan, Lebene Konan, owned two houses that she leased to various tenants. The mailing addresses for both houses were used for mail delivery to both tenants and some of Konan’s own mail. In May 2020, the USPS ceased delivering Konan’s mail to these addresses, claiming that the listed owner for each address was the tenants and not Konan. In her complaint, Konan alleged that postal employees deliberately withheld her mail for an extended period, resulting in financial and personal harm. Konan argued that the postal exception should apply only to negligent mishandling of mail, not to intentional misconduct. The District Court dismissed the claim, citing that § 2680’s postal exception encompasses intentional misdelivery of mail, thus barring Konan’s suit. However, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the statutory terms did not encompass intentional acts of non-delivery.
The Supreme Court sided with the government. Writing for the majority, the Court interpreted the terms “loss” and “miscarriage” broadly, concluding that they encompass both negligent and intentional failures to deliver mail. Because Konan’s claims arose from nondelivery, the FTCA’s waiver did not apply, and sovereign immunity properly barred her suit.
The Court’s Reasoning and the Dissent
The majority opinion, written by Clarence Thomas, grounded its analysis on textualism and historical meaning. Focusing on the ordinary understanding of “loss” and “miscarriage” at the time of the FTCA’s enactment, the Court concluded that those terms were not limited to accidental or negligent conduct. In the majority’s view, the statutory language reflects Congress’s intent to shield the government from liability arising out of disruptions in core postal functions, regardless of whether the underlying conduct was negligent or intentional.
The dissenting Justices took a narrower view. They contended that reading the exception to cover intentional wrongdoing undermines the FTCA’s remedial purpose. In their view, Congress likely intended to preserve immunity for routine and accidental mishaps inherent in large-scale mail operations, not for deliberate misconduct by federal employees. Extending immunity to intentional acts, the dissent warned, risks leaving individuals without a meaningful damages remedy for egregious government behavior.
Practical Implications for Government Liability
The decision carries significant consequences for claims against the federal government, particularly those involving the Postal Service. First, and practically speaking, individuals who suffer harm from alleged intentional withholding of mail will now face obstacles in seeking monetary damages under the FTCA. By clarifying that the postal exception covers intentional nondelivery, the Court foreclosed a category of tort suits that plaintiffs had increasingly pursued in some circuits.
Second, Konan may signal a broader interpretive trend. In recent terms, the Court has often read statutory limits on government liability and administrative authority in a manner that reinforces structural protections for federal entities, such as Trump v. United States, where the Court held that the President enjoys absolute immunity for official acts. The Court’s approach has tended to prioritize institutional stability and textualism over expansive remedial interpretations.
Broader Significance
The case also emphasizes the importance of statutory drafting. If Congress disagrees with the Court’s interpretation, it can always amend the FTCA to clarify the scope of the postal exception. Regardless, the Court’s reading may define the landscape of postal-related tort claims for the foreseeable future.
Looking Ahead
United States Postal Service v. Konan provides much-needed clarity regarding the FTCA’s postal exception. At the same time, it narrows the availability of damages remedies for individuals alleging intentional interference with mail delivery. As lower courts apply the decision, further questions may arise about how far the exception extends, including in cases of intentional mail destruction. The decision represents a noteworthy development in the Supreme Court’s 2025-26 Term.
Sources:
28 U.S.C. § 2680
Mark Sherman, Supreme Court rules the Postal Service can’t be sued, even when mail is intentionally not delivered, Associated Press (Feb. 24, 2026 12:56 PM), https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-postal-service-missing-mail-7ce97a5b7d56373cdeaa6ecc9a9132f5.
Trump v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 2312 (2024).
United States Postal Service v. Konan, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2025/24-351 (last visited Mar 1, 2026).
United States Postal Serv. v. Konan, No. 24-351, 2026 WL 501765, at *1 (U.S. Feb. 24, 2026).