United States Postal Service, et al., Petitioners v. Lebene Konan

The Court said the Federal Tort Claims Act's postal exception covers claims that Postal Service employees intentionally refused to deliver mail to a designated address. That reversed the Fifth Circuit and blocked Lebene Konan's suit against the United States over alleged nondelivery at her rental properties.

The Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and said the postal exception applies to intentional nondelivery of mail, but the vote count and opinion lineup are not provided here.

Majority

Thomas

Roberts

Alito

Kavanaugh

Barrett

Dissent

Sotomayor

Kagan

Gorsuch

Jackson

The decision gives the Postal Service broader protection from lawsuits over mail that is allegedly withheld on purpose, not just mishandled by mistake. That affects property owners, tenants, and other customers who may claim the government failed to deliver mail to a specific address.

The case returns to the lower courts to apply the Supreme Court's decision. Postal Service officials and future plaintiffs will now have to treat intentional nondelivery claims as barred by this part of the Federal Tort Claims Act.

The dispute was whether alleged intentional refusal to deliver mail counts as a "loss" or "miscarriage" of postal matter. The Court said it does.

It makes damages suits against the United States harder when the claim is based on intentional nondelivery. A landlord or resident may need to look for other remedies.

The case goes back to the lower courts with the Supreme Court's interpretation in place. The lower courts must proceed on the understanding that this claim is barred.