SCOTUS Rules 5-4, USPS Survives NARROW Vote!

USPS mail carrier at truck near stop sign.

The Supreme Court just handed federal workers a license to deliberately mishandle your mail without consequence, and the implications reach far beyond lost letters.

Story Snapshot

Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that USPS cannot be sued even when employees intentionally refuse to deliver mail
Texas landlord Merly Konan alleged postal workers deliberately withheld her mail due to racial discrimination, harming her rental business
Decision expands federal immunity beyond negligence to cover purposeful misconduct by government employees
Industry groups warn ruling eliminates accountability for mail-dependent businesses like newspapers and small firms
Four justices dissented, arguing Congress never intended to shield intentional wrongdoing from lawsuits

When Government Workers Can Ignore Your Mail on Purpose

The February 24, 2026 decision in United States Postal Service v. Konan settles a question most Americans never imagined needed answering: Can federal postal workers deliberately refuse to deliver your mail and face zero legal consequences? Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the five-justice majority, said yes. The ruling interprets an obscure 1946 law, the Federal Tort Claims Act, to shield USPS from lawsuits arising from any mail delivery failure, whether accidental or intentional. This wasn’t a case about lost packages or delayed deliveries. Merly Konan accused postal employees of systematically returning her mail to senders, allegedly motivated by racial bias, which disrupted her Texas rental business and caused emotional distress.

The Legal Loophole That Swallowed Accountability

The Federal Tort Claims Act waives the government’s sovereign immunity for certain employee misconduct, allowing citizens to sue federal workers who harm them while on the job. Congress carved out exceptions, including one for claims “arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.” For decades, courts assumed this exception protected USPS only from negligence suits, like complaints about accidentally damaged parcels. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, ruling that intentional refusal to deliver mail fell outside this protective umbrella. The Supreme Court majority disagreed, declaring that “loss” and “miscarriage” encompass any failure to deliver, regardless of the postal worker’s intent or malice.

Four Justices See a Dangerous Precedent

Justice Sonia Sotomayor led an unusual coalition in dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Their objection transcends partisan lines, rooted in textualist principles conservatives typically champion. They argued the majority rewrote congressional intent, transforming a narrow exception for delivery errors into blanket immunity for deliberate misconduct. The dissent emphasized that Congress used the word “negligent” alongside “loss” and “miscarriage,” signaling these terms apply to accidental failures, not purposeful sabotage. Sotomayor warned the ruling creates perverse incentives, essentially telling postal workers their jobs are consequence-free zones where intentional wrongdoing carries no greater legal risk than honest mistakes.

The Real-World Fallout for American Businesses

The National Newspaper Association immediately condemned the decision, with Chair Martha Diaz Askenazy warning it “puts newspapers at risk” by eliminating recourse when delivery failures damage circulation revenue. Publishers, small e-commerce operations, and landlords like Konan who rely on mail for rent checks and tenant communications now face a troubling reality. If postal employees decide, for any reason including discrimination or personal grudges, to withhold mail, victims have virtually no legal remedy under federal law. The decision doesn’t just affect individual plaintiffs. It signals that USPS, already struggling with public trust and service quality complaints, operates with expanded legal protections that private competitors could never dream of obtaining.

Where Conservative Principles Collide With Government Immunity

This case presents a fascinating tension within conservative legal philosophy. Originalists and textualists typically argue for limiting government power and holding officials accountable when they abuse authority. The dissent made precisely this argument, contending the majority invented immunity Congress never authorized. Yet the majority, led by Thomas, prioritized a different conservative value: protecting government operations from frivolous litigation that could paralyze essential services. The problem with this reasoning, which critics from libertarian outlets like Reason.com quickly identified, is that shielding intentional misconduct goes beyond preventing lawsuit abuse. It removes the judicial check on government behavior, forcing citizens to rely solely on internal USPS discipline and congressional oversight, mechanisms with notoriously poor track records for addressing individual grievances.

The Postal Service's Recent Supreme Court Win Is Bad News for Government Accountabilityhttps://t.co/0zvWIh5DDo

— José Colón (@JoseEColon) February 26, 2026

The case now returns to lower courts, where Konan might pursue claims against individual postal workers outside the Federal Tort Claims Act framework, though such suits face significant practical hurdles. Meanwhile, the National Newspaper Association and other industry groups are pivoting to Congress, urging legislative fixes to restore accountability. Whether lawmakers will act remains uncertain, but the Supreme Court has made one thing clear: absent congressional intervention, Americans who suffer from deliberately mishandled mail have nowhere to turn for justice. The implications extend beyond postal service into broader questions about federal immunity and whether government employees should answer for intentional wrongdoing the same way private citizens must.