Landlord says mail wasn't delivered because she is Black. Supreme Court weighs in

WASHINGTON − For years, all Lebene Konan wanted was for the mail to come.

Konan sought the help of the government watchdog over the Postal Service, which ordered that mail be delivered to two houses she owns in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

She filed more than 50 administrative complaints and got written confirmation from local postal authorities that she should receive mail for herself and her tenants in the neighborhood's "cluster box" of locked post office boxes assigned to homes.

When that didn’t work, Konan went to court in 2022 seeking compensation. She told the court she believes postal workers led a “two-year campaign of racial harassment” against her because she is Black and rents rooms to White people.

The Supreme Courtwill debate on Oct. 8 whether Konan should have the chance to prove that the Postal Service deliberately withheld her mail.

Trust in the Postal Service 'may be at stake'

The Justice Department argues Congress gave the U.S. Postal Service immunity for mail delivery problems that are merely mistakes, as well as for those alleged to be intentional.

Otherwise, the government says, the hundreds of thousands of customer complaints the Postal Service gets each year alleging misconduct could be turned into crippling lawsuits that are costly to fight because it's difficult to determine whether a postal worker had malicious intent.

But Greg Reed, a regulatory attorney at Hanson Bridgett LLP who previously represented private contractors who make up the Postal Service’s surface transportation network, said the case will determine “whether this unique American institution can be held accountable to its customers.”

“Both trust in the Postal Service and its continued relevancy may be at stake,” he said.

Is refusing to deliver the mail protected?

A federal district judge in Texas ruled in 2023 that Konan couldn’t sue. That’s because federal law protects the Postal Service from claims “arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.”

But when Konan appealed, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that language doesn’t cover a postal worker's refusal to deliver the mail, which is what she alleged happened.

“Where USPS intentionally fails or refuses to deliver mail to designated addressees, and never mistakenly delivers the mail to a third party, the mail is not 'miscarr(ied),' as it was not carried at all,” the appeals court said. “Konan’s claims are not barred because no miscarriage occurred.”

The federal government asked the Supreme Court to settle the issue.

The true meaning of the word 'miscarriage'

Both the Justice Department and Konan’s lawyers argue the common understanding of the term “miscarriage” works in their favor.

Miscarriage, the government says, implies deliberate wrongdoing, just as other words that start with “mis” – such as “misconduct,” “misbehavior” and “misdeed” – do.

That interpretation of “miscarriage” also makes the law easier to apply, as the line between intentional and unintentional can be difficult to distinguish, the government says.

For example, what if a postal carrier genuinely thinks a residence is vacant even though it is not? Is that an intentional “miscarriage,” for which the Postal Service can be sued, the Justice Department asked in its written argument, in which the government also said there was a legitimate reason to withhold Konan’s mail.

Konan’s lawyers argue that the government is trying to stretch the meaning of “miscarriage” beyond its common usage. While some words that start with “mis” define wrongful conduct, plenty of others – such as “mishap,” “misunderstand,” and “misjudge” – suggest only inadvertence, they said.

And when warning about a flood of lawsuits, the government “wildly overestimates” the economic incentives for someone to sue, her lawyers argue.

“In most cases, the $405 filing fee – not to mention the cost of hiring a lawyer – would dwarf the potential recovery from a missing package,” they said in a legal brief.

Supreme Court previously sided with woman who tripped over mail

In 2024, the Postal Service was hit with 942 suits for damages, according to the government. Most were related to auto accidents involving postal workers. Seventy-three arose out of trips or falls.

In a 2006 case brought by a woman who tripped over mail left on her porch, the Supreme Court rejected the government’s concern that the Postal Service could become inundated with frivolous slip-and-fall claims.

In its 7-1 decision, the court said the Postal Service must rely on ordinary protections against frivolous lawsuits because Congress “did not intend to immunize all postal activities.”

Three right-leaning groups, in briefs, encouraged the Supreme Court to rule against the Postal Service again.

Postal workers are the federal employees Americans interact with the most, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance told the court.

“This case,” the group wrote, “illustrates the severe consequences that can come from allowing federal agencies and their agents to believe they are above the law.”