A legal battle now before the US Supreme Court could fundamentally reshape the American public's ability to sue the United States Postal Service (USPS) for undelivered mail, challenging a long-standing legal protection.
The Case That Could Unleash a Torrent of Litigation
It is notoriously difficult to take the USPS to court over lost, delayed, or mishandled letters and parcels. However, this legal shield is under direct threat from a case involving a Texas landlord, Lebene Konan, who alleges postal workers deliberately withheld her mail for two years.
The financially strained Postal Service has warned the nation's highest court that a ruling against it could trigger a deluge of lawsuits concerning the widespread, albeit frustrating, issue of missing mail. This concern is especially acute during the holiday season, when billions of items, from Christmas cards to Black Friday purchases, move through the postal system.
At the heart of the case is a critical legal question: does the special postal exemption within the Federal Tort Claims Act apply when employees intentionally fail to deliver the mail? The exemption currently protects USPS from lawsuits related to the 'loss, miscarriage or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.'
A Two-Year Ordeal Over Withheld Mail
The dispute began when Konan, a landlord, real estate agent, and insurance agent, discovered the mailbox key for one of her rental properties in Euless, Texas, had been changed without her knowledge. According to court documents, when she contacted the local post office, she was told she would not receive a new key or regular mail delivery until she proved she owned the property.
Although she provided proof, the mail problems persisted. Konan claims that two postal employees, who she alleges did not like that she is Black and owns multiple properties, deliberately marked mail as undeliverable or returned it to sender.
As a result, Konan and her tenants failed to receive critical items including bills, medications, and car titles. Konan further contends she lost rental income because some tenants moved out due to the situation. After filing dozens of complaints, she finally initiated a lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which has now reached the Supreme Court.
Judicial Concerns and Government Warnings
During oral arguments last month, the justices appeared to scrutinise the government's position. Frederick Liu, an assistant to the Solicitor General, cautioned the court that a ruling for the landlord could lead to 'a ton of suits about mail,' with people inferring malicious intent from a 'rude comment' or other minor slights.
Justice Samuel Alito voiced concerns about opening the door to frivolous litigation, wondering if people would sue believing a carrier skipped their house for lack of a Christmas tip or fear of a 'big dog.' He questioned the financial impact, asking, 'Is the cost of a first-class letter going to be $3 now?'
However, Konan's lawyer, Easha Anand, accused the government of 'fearmongering.' She argued that her client's experience was highly unusual and that a ruling in their favour would be narrow, with USPS retaining immunity for the vast majority of postal issues. She stated, 'These sorts of allegations, I think, will be rare.'
An appellate court previously sided with Konan, ruling that her case involved intentional acts, not simple negligence or loss, and therefore might not fall under the postal exemption. The USPS subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court. A decision is expected next year.
