The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a 5-4 decision prohibiting Americans from suing the Postal Service in federal court for damages when carriers intentionally destroy or refuse to deliver mail. The ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas in the case USPS v. Konan, interprets the Federal Tort Claims Act to cover such intentional acts under terms like 'loss' and 'miscarriage.' This comes amid concerns over mail voting integrity ahead of the 2026 midterms.
On February 24, 2026, the Supreme Court delivered its decision in USPS v. Konan, a case stemming from allegations against the U.S. Postal Service in Euless, Texas. Lebene Konan, a Black landlord, claimed that for two years, local carriers failed to deliver mail to her tenants, allegedly due to objections over her leasing rooms to white people. She filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which generally waives government immunity but excludes claims arising from the 'loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission' of mail.
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit sided with Konan, ruling that intentional withholding exceeded mere negligence. The court noted that 'loss' implies unintentional action, while 'miscarriage' suggests a failed delivery attempt, allowing suits for deliberate misconduct. The Trump administration appealed, and the Supreme Court reversed in a 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas. The majority, comprising all Republican-appointed justices except Neil Gorsuch, held that 'loss' encompasses any 'deprivation of mail,' including intentional acts. Thomas cited dictionary definitions and historical newspaper articles from 1893 and 1911 to argue that 'miscarriage' applies to mail that fails to arrive properly, regardless of intent.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Gorsuch and two others, criticizing the majority's interpretation. She wrote that 'loss' is 'ordinarily understood to capture unintentional conduct,' adding, 'No one intentionally loses something.' Sotomayor argued that Thomas substituted 'deprivation' for 'loss' and relied on obscure examples, as the government could not provide contemporary usage for 'miscarriage' meaning intentional withholding. She noted the term's historical context in postal regulations referred to accidental misdelivery.
The ruling arrives as millions prepare to vote by mail in the 2026 midterms, following the processing of nearly 100 million mail ballots in 2024. Critics, including legal scholar Margaret Schaack in a University of Chicago Law Review article, warn it removes a deterrent against postal interference in elections, potentially emboldening misconduct without recourse for victims. Previously, such suits could expose wrongdoing, even if damages came from the government. Thomas has previously voiced concerns about mail voting fraud risks, including ballot theft, yet the decision eliminates a safeguard against it.
