United States Postal Service et al. v. Konan (24-351)
- Term
- OT 2025
- Argued
- 2025-10-08
- Decided
- 2026-02-24
- Vote
- 5-4 for Postal Service
- Opinion
- Justice Thomas
- Majority
- Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett
- Dissent
- Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Jackson
The case in brief
Facts
Lebene Konan owns two rental houses in Euless, Texas, and had a long dispute with the local post office over mail delivery to them. She alleged that Postal Service employees intentionally withheld her mail, returned it to senders as "undeliverable," and stopped delivery, causing her to lose tenants. After administrative complaints failed, she sued the United States in federal court under state law, seeking damages for lost rental income, lost mail, and emotional distress. A federal law called the Federal Tort Claims Act generally lets people sue the government for harms caused by federal employees, but its "postal exception" keeps the government immune from claims arising from the "loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission" of mail. The trial court dismissed her case under that exception, the Fifth Circuit appeals court reversed, and the Supreme Court took the case because other appeals courts had ruled differently.
Question
Does the postal exception, which shields the government from suits over the loss, miscarriage, or careless handling of mail, also block lawsuits claiming that postal workers deliberately refused to deliver someone's mail?
Conclusion
The Postal Service won in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Thomas, and the Court sent the case back to the lower court. The Court held that the government stays immune from claims arising from intentional nondelivery of mail, because in 1946 the ordinary meanings of "miscarriage" and "loss" covered mail failing to arrive or being withheld, whether on purpose or not. The Court said the word "negligent" limits only "transmission," not the other two words, and it did not decide whether every one of Konan's claims is barred. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan, Gorsuch, and Jackson, dissented, arguing that Congress meant the exception to cover careless mistakes, not deliberate misconduct like maliciously withholding mail.
Opinion of the Court
Authored by Justice Thomas (10,076 words total).
Volume 607 U. S. Part 2 Pages 391–420
THE SUPREME COURT February 24, 2026
Page Proof Pending Publication
NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE et al. v. KONAN certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fth circuit No. 24–351. Argued October 8, 2025—Decided February 24, 2026 Respondent Lebene Konan and the local post office in Euless, Texas, had an extended dispute concerning mail delivery to two rental properties owned by Konan. Konan alleged that, among other things, United States Postal Service employees intentionally withheld her mail and interfered with its delivery. After administrative complaints proved unsuccessful, Konan sued the United States in federal court, bringing various state-law tort claims alleging that the United States Postal Service intentionally and wrongfully withheld her mail. The District Court dismissed Konan’s complaint pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act’s postal exception, under which the United States retains sovereign immunity for all claims “arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter,” 28 U. S. C. § 2680(b). The District Court concluded that the United States enjoys sovereign immunity from Konan’s claims because they all relate to personal or financial harms arising from nondelivery of mail. The District Court further held that the postal exception is not limited to merely negligent failure to properly carry the mail. The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the terms “loss,” “miscarriage,” and “negligent transmission” do not encompass the intentional act of not delivering the mail at all. In contrast, the First and Second Circuits have interpreted the postal exception to apply to suits even when they arise from harms caused by intentional misconduct. The Court granted certiorari to resolve the split.
Page Proof Pending Publication
Held: The United States retains sovereign immunity for claims arising out of the intentional nondelivery of mail because both “miscarriage” and “loss” of mail under the FTCA’s postal exception can occur as a result of the Postal Service’s intentional failure to deliver the mail. Pp. 398–406. (a) The postal exception reflects Congress’s judgment that redress for “harms” of “the sort primarily identified with the Postal Service’s function of transporting mail throughout the United States” should not come from potentially burdensome tort suits. Dolan v. Postal Service, 546 U. S. 481, 489. P. 398. (b) Both “miscarriage” and “loss” of mail under the postal exception can occur as a result of the Postal Service’s intentional failure to deliver the mail. Pp. 399–404
(1) The Court interprets statutory terms according to the ordinary meanings they had when they were enacted. Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States, 585 U. S. 274, 277. When Congress enacted the FTCA in 1946, the “miscarriage” of mail ordinarily included any failure of mail to properly arrive at its intended destination. Dictionaries published around that time confirm that a “miscarriage” of mail happened when mail failed to arrive at its destination. The Court declines to limit “miscarriage” to negligent failures, as no dictionaries cited impose this limitation, and ordinary speakers used “miscarriage” to refer to problems with mail caused by intentional misconduct, such as when mail was stolen or burned. The Court also declines to limit “miscarriage” to when mail goes to the wrong address, as speakers used the term when mail failed to reach its intended destination regardless of where the mail ended up, including when mail was delayed, came too late, or was left in the post office. Pp. 399–401. (2) When Congress enacted the FTCA, the “loss” of mail ordinarily meant a deprivation of mail, regardless of how the deprivation was brought about. Contemporary dictionaries defined “loss” as the act or fact of losing or suffering deprivation, and one can suffer a deprivation of something when another intentionally keeps that thing for himself. Konan alleged that she was entitled to possession of her mail but that the Postal Service converted it, meaning she was “deprived of the use and possession of the property,” Black’s Law Dictionary 421, so her claims arise out of the loss of her mail. The Court disagrees with the attempt by Konan to limit “loss” to only inadvertent losses. A loss can be the result of another person’s intentional misconduct, and ordinary speakers commonly described a “loss” of mail from theft, including theft by the carrier. The Court also disagrees with the argument that the postal exception applies only when the Postal Service lost the mail, because Congress applied the postal exception to all “claim[s] arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission” of mail, describing kinds of harms, not kinds of actions by the postal workers. This interpretation is consistent with the principal provision of the FTCA, which includes losses caused by intentional misconduct and does not require that the Government lost anything. The Court rejects Konan’s proposal to limit “loss” to only “destruction.” Ordinary speakers referred to losses of mail even when the mail was not destroyed, and the dictionary definitions Konan pointed to were listed first because they were the oldest, not because they were primary. Pp. 401–404. (c) The Court rejects Konan’s remaining arguments that her claims must not be barred by the postal exception. Pp. 404–406.
Excerpt of 8 of 101 paragraphs. Full opinion available on the interactive page or in the official PDF.
Read the slip opinion (PDF) · Interactive oral-argument transcript · All tracked cases
This static summary is shown when JavaScript is disabled. The full interactive analysis loads above.