USPS, et al. v. Konan, Lebene

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
USPS, et al. v. Konan, Lebene
Term: 2025
Important Dates
Argued: October 8, 2025
Decided: February 24, 2026
Outcome
vacated and remanded
Vote
5-4
Majority
Clarence Thomas • Chief Justice John Roberts • Samuel Alito • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett
Dissenting
Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Ketanji Brown Jackson

USPS, et al. v. Konan, Lebene is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 24, 2026, during the court's October 2025-2026 term. The case was argued on October 8, 2025.

The Court vacated and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in a 5-4 ruling, holding the United States Postal Service is protected by sovereign immunity. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerns the Federal Tort Claims Act. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "Whether a plaintiff's claim that she and her tenants did not receive mail because Postal Service employees intentionally did not deliver it to a designated address arises out of 'the loss' or 'miscarriage' of letters or postal matter. 28 U.S.C. 2680(b)."[2]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Background

    Case summary

    The following are the parties to this case:[3]

    • Petitioner: United States Postal Service, et al.
    • Respondent: Lebene Konan
      • Legal counsel: Robert J. Clary (Robert Clary, PLLC)

    The following summary of the case was published by Oyez, a free law project from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and the Chicago-Kent College of Law:

    “ Lebene Konan, a Black property owner, leased two rental residences in Euless, Texas, and retrieved business and tenant mail from a central mailbox daily. In May 2020, United States Postal Service (USPS) employee Jason Rojas changed the lock on the mailbox at one of Konan's properties without her approval, halted mail delivery, and demanded ownership verification. Even after USPS’s Inspector General confirmed Konan’s ownership, Rojas and another USPS employee, Raymond Drake, allegedly continued marking mail addressed to Konan and her tenants as undeliverable. Konan claims this refusal of service extended to her second property and was racially motivated, causing loss of rental income and disruption of essential communications.

    Konan sued USPS, Rojas, Drake, and the United States, raising claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and alleging violations of the equal protection guarantees of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985. The district court dismissed her FTCA claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the postal-matter exception, and her equal protection claims for failure to state a claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the equal protection claims but reversed on the FTCA claim, holding that sovereign immunity did not bar claims based on intentional acts of mail non-delivery.[4]

    		”

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether a plaintiff's claim that she and her tenants did not receive mail because Postal Service employees intentionally did not deliver it to a designated address arises out of "the loss" or "miscarriage" of letters or postal matter. 28 U.S.C. 2680(b).[4] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[5]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[6]

    Outcome

    In a 5-4 opinion, the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, holding the United States Postal Service is protected by sovereign immunity. [1] Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court.

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote:[1]

    “

    The United States enjoys sovereign immunity and cannot be sued without its consent. By means of the Federal Tort Claims Act, Congress waived that sovereign immunity for certain tort suits based on the conduct of Government employees. See 28 U. S. C. §§2674, 1346(b). But, in the provision at issue in this case, Congress retained sovereign immunity for a wide range of claims about mail. Specifically, the FTCA’s postal exception retains sovereign immunity for all claims “arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.” §2680(b). This case concerns whether this exception applies when postal workers intentionally fail to deliver the mail. We hold that it does. [4]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

    In her dissent Justice Sotomayor wrote:[1]

    “

    The United States is generally protected by sovereign immunity, but Congress, through the FTCA, has enacted a capacious waiver of that immunity for tort suits when an individual is harmed by a federal employee acting within the scope of her employment. That waiver, however, is subject to several exceptions. Today, the Court holds that one exception—the postal exception—prevents individuals from recovering for injuries based on a postal employee’s intentional misconduct, including when an employee maliciously withholds their mail. Because this reading of the postal exception transforms, rather than honors, the exception Congress enacted, I respectfully dissent. [4]

    		”
    —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2025-2026

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2025-2026

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 6, 2025. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions by mid-June.[7]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Supreme Court of the United States, "Opinion of the court," February 24, 2026
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "24-351 USPS, ET AL. V. KONAN, LEBENE QP", April 21, 2025
    3. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 24-351," accessed April 29, 2025
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued October 8, 2025
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued October 8, 2025
    7. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=USPS,_et_al._v._Konan,_Lebene&oldid=11067455"