The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Tuesday that the Federal Tort Claims Act's postal exemption shields the U.S. Postal Service from liability for intentional failures to deliver mail — even when alleged to be racially motivated — ending a Texas landlord's long-running suit claiming two USPS employees waged a "campaign of terror" against her properties.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority that the exemption (28 U.S.C. §2680(b)) bars claims for "the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission" of mail, and the terms "loss" and "miscarriage" encompass intentional acts based on their broad public understanding when Congress enacted the FTCA in 1946.

"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," Thomas wrote. The court declined to decide whether all of plaintiff Lebene Konan's claims are barred, remanding for lower courts to apply the ruling.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, with Sotomayor arguing the majority "transforms, rather than honors, the exception Congress enacted." The dissent contended the text/history exclude intentional misconduct from the exemption.

Konan, owner of multiple rental properties in a Fort Worth suburb, sued USPS in 2022, alleging two employees deliberately refused mail delivery for two years because she is a "successful African American woman." She claimed the carrier singled her out for discriminatory treatment, with a local postmaster's help, denying her "postal privileges accorded to white citizens" — driving away tenants and costing thousands in lost rent.

A Texas federal judge initially dismissed nuisance, tortious interference, conversion, and intentional infliction claims under the postal exemption. The Fifth Circuit reversed in January 2023, holding "no one intentionally loses something" and there can be no "miscarriage" without attempted carriage.

USPS sought Supreme Court review in September 2024, arguing the Fifth Circuit's narrow reading conflicted with the exemption's text and purpose.

The majority sided with USPS, finding intentional non-delivery fits "loss" and "miscarriage" — ending Konan's FTCA claims tied to delivery failures. The court left open whether any non-exempt claims survive.

Konan is represented by Easha Anand, Jeffrey L. Fisher, and Pamela S. Karlan of the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, plus Robert Clary. USPS is represented in-house by Thomas J. Marshall, Stephan J. Boardman, Nathan T. Solomon, Michael D. Weaver, and Joshua J. Hofer, plus D. John Sauer, Brett A. Shumate, Hashim M. Mooppan, Frederick Liu, and Urja Mittal of the Solicitor General's Office.

The decision broadens federal postal immunity for intentional acts, potentially limiting civil rights and tort claims against USPS for discriminatory or retaliatory delivery refusals — a significant win for government immunity in mail operations.