The Supreme Court is considering a Texas woman’s lawsuit claiming that the United States Postal Service (USPS) engaged in racial discrimination when it stopped delivering her mail.

Konan, who described herself in a brief as a “respected black realtor, insurance agent, and landlady” in Euless, Texas, said that in 2020, postal employees allegedly “began a years-long campaign of racial harassment” against her. She claimed that the USPS failed to deliver mail to her or her tenants because its employees allegedly “did not ‘like the idea’ that a black person owned the properties and leased rooms to white people.”

Withholding mail violates federal law, and in this case, it drove away current and prospective tenants, “causing the value of Ms. Konan’s properties to decline and costing her rental income,” the brief said.

However, Konan’s allegations were not the subject of the Oct. 8 oral argument that reached the Supreme Court. Instead, the justices focused on the federal government’s contention that federal law shields the USPS from liability for losing mail.

Konan sued in federal district court, bringing a tort and discrimination lawsuit against USPS. A tort is a wrongful act or infringement of a right that gives rise to civil liability.

Specifically, the woman brought claims under two equal protection statutes and the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Act grants waivers in certain situations that allow lawsuits against the federal government “under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable.”

The district court ruled against Konan in January 2023, finding her claims were “barred by sovereign immunity,” according to the postal service’s petition. Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that prevents governments from being sued in their own courts unless they consent to being sued.

The district court said the Federal Tort Claims Act does not waive the government’s sovereign immunity in “any claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter,” the petition said.

Konan argued that the waiver language did not preclude her lawsuit because allegedly, the “USPS intentionally and deliberately refused to deliver her mail.” The postal matter exception covers only negligent acts, as opposed to intentional torts, according to the petition.

The district court found that Konan’s claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act pertain to “personal [and] financial harms arising from nondelivery [of postal matter],” which means those claims are “barred by sovereign immunity.” The equal protection claim was also dismissed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the ruling, in part, in March 2024, upholding the dismissal of the equal protection claim but allowing the claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act to proceed.

The district court had dismissed the Federal Tort Claims Act claims after it found that Konan’s allegations came about as a result of “loss” or “miscarriage,” the circuit court said, according to the petition.

“We disagree,” the circuit court said. “This case does not fall into one of those limited situations” because “the postal workers’ actions were intentional and thus cannot constitute a ‘negligent transmission.’”

The government’s position is that the Fifth Circuit misinterpreted the postal exception.

The circuit court’s ruling conflicts with Supreme Court precedent, as well as rulings by the First and Second Circuits, and “threatens to inflict substantial practical harms on USPS and the United States,” the petition said.

Under the circuit court’s ruling, “any person whose mail is lost or misdelivered could bring a federal tort suit … so long as she alleges that a USPS employee acted intentionally.”

Konan’s position is that the government is “wrong” to say the Fifth Circuit’s ruling “will unleash a torrent of litigation,” her brief said. Konan’s case is “about racial discrimination” and “withholding mail was just one way that USPS inflicted that harm,” it added.

During the oral argument on Oct. 8, Chief Justice John Roberts took issue with the government’s interpretation of the word “loss,” which he said doesn’t necessarily indicate wrongdoing.

“If I say ‘I lost my car,’ people aren’t going to think somebody stole his car,” Roberts told Department of Justice attorney Frederick Liu. “They’re going to think I forgot where it was.”

“If somebody said … ‘I lost the mail,’ I wouldn’t think right away somebody stole it,” Roberts said.

Justice Elena Kagan added, “It’s like you lost your keys, you lost your pen, they lost your letters. We’re not going to allow you to sue about that.”

“That’s the way it seems most natural to me to read this sentence,” she said.

Justice Samuel Alito asked Konan’s attorney, Easha Anand, to respond to Liu’s statement that ruling in favor of Konan could open the floodgates to litigation against the postal service.

“It is going to be very easy for people who are unhappy with the delivery of mail to claim that they’re not getting their letters because of intentional conduct,” Alito said.

People might say there were delays because they “didn’t give the mail carrier a tip at Christmas,” or because they have “a big dog that ran up to the door and scared … the mail carrier.”

“What will the consequences be if all these suits are filed and they have to be litigated?” the justice said. “Is the cost of a first-class letter going to be $3 now?”

Anand said “that’s going to be hard.”

“Even alleging negligent conduct is tricky here because, if all you have is, ‘My package didn’t show up,’ you’re going to get kicked out of court,” the lawyer said.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case by the end of June 2026.

This article by Matthew Vadum appeared Oct. 13, 2025, in The Epoch Times.