SCOTUS Hears Out Racial Discrimination Lawsuit Against USPS
Some stupid lawsuits go all the way to the highest court in the land.
Lebene Konan claims that United States Postal Service (USPS) employees intentionally refused to deliver mail to two rental properties she owned because of “one factor: They don’t like the idea of a black person owning the residences and renting rooms in the residences to white people.”
Supreme Court does not evaluate Konan’s racism allegations. They are evaluating whether Konan is legally allowed to file a lawsuit against the USPS in the first place. (RELATED: SCOTUS Seems Skeptical About Colorado Law Requiring Counselors to Agree With Children’s Gender Confusion)
The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) recognizes government liability for “negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of its employees acting within the scope of their official duties.”
🚨 Daily Caller White House Correspondent @reaganreese_: “The president said yesterday that Obama committed treason. Does the White House think the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling protects Obama from prosecution?”
LEAVITT: “He [Pres. Trump] wants to see everyone who… pic.twitter.com/1bgZ12HIG3
– Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) July 23, 2025
There are exceptions to this liability.
You cannot sue the federal government based on “any claim arising from the loss, miscarriage or negligent transmission of letters or postal items.
As Justice Elena Kagan summed it up: “The Postal Service lost your mail. Sorry, you can’t sue over that.”
Therein lies the Supreme Court’s decision. If USPS employees harassed Konan in the manner alleged, does that count as “loss, miscarriage, or negligent conveyance”?
Frederick Liu, assistant to the solicitor general, argued that Konan’s allegations did indeed fall within the postal exception.
Firstly, because Konan alleges a “mail error”.
Second, because Konan alleges “loss of mail…its own complaint uses the word ‘loss’.”
Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether the standard definition of “loss” covered Konan’s complaints.
“But loss doesn’t usually mean… wrongdoing involved. I mean, if I say I lost my car, people aren’t going to think that someone stole their car. They’re going to think that I forgot where it was… In other words, it doesn’t say that anything bad happened other than, you know, yours, you know, paying attention to something.”
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed skeptical of Liu’s defense.
“What I am suggesting is that [Konan’s] I have some complaints here that aren’t really about lost mail, are they? They are therefore not the key to the failure of his mail to arrive. So the intentional claim for emotional distress, for example, appears linked to his claim that postal workers engaged in a campaign of racial harassment regarding the way they handled his mail. (RELATED: Lawyer Explains Free Speech to Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson)
🚨 Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s solo dissents, which deliver scathing words to the Supreme Court majority, may indicate that she is moving further to the left than even other Democratic-appointed justices. pic.twitter.com/YGrDKc1i6o
– Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) July 14, 2025
Liu clarified that he was not discussing the details of Konan’s other assertions, but simply the specific assertion that the FTCA exception should not apply to Konan’s case.
The evidence put forward by Konan regarding racist discrimination appears weak.
She alleges, according to court documents, that a USPS mail carrier named Raymond Rojas “changed the designated owner of one of the properties.” [owned by Konan] to a white man, Ian Harvey, who lived on the property.
Konan asserts, based on information and belief, that Rojas “did not unilaterally change the address lock of another residence owner on his route; nor did he refuse to deliver mail to white-owned residences.”
“On information and belief” only means that Konan has been informed of Rojas’ conduct and believes it. But how could Konan know such precise details about Rojas’ itinerary? Presumably he delivers to many residents in the Euless, Texas area. Did Konan question each of them?
Konan states that “Rojas chose [her] is subject to discriminatory treatment because she is a successful African-American woman and Rojas is unhappy with the fact that she owns residences that he must maintain.
Konan complained that, while at the post office, she was “asked to confirm her identity, explain who the true owner of the residence was, and provide information on the date she purchased the residence.” She stated “[n]No white person is subjected to this type of treatment.
Again, is Konan omniscient? This sounds like the suspicions of a woman grasping at straws.
Do you think Supreme Court oral arguments should be televised? pic.twitter.com/Qf58CXpsdO
– Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) May 7, 2025
Consider the consequences of accepting Konan’s argument.
As Justice Samuel Alito asked, summing up Liu, “Is it going to be very easy for people unhappy with mail delivery to claim that they are not receiving their letters because of intentional conduct rather than negligent conduct?”
“I mean, a lot of people might think… that what’s happening is intentional. I’m not getting my mail because I didn’t tip the mailman on Christmas, or I have a big dog that ran up to the door and scared – scared the mailman into something, or… or she – he looked askance at my Christmas decorations, or there’s a feature about me that the mailman doesn’t like. Is that going to be difficult?”
Probably not. The opposing attorney acknowledged that if a person believed their neighbors received better service from the USPS over a two-year period, they could “move to the pleading stage” in a trial.
“And what will be the consequences if all these lawsuits are filed and have to be litigated? » asked Alito. “Is the cost of a first class letter going to be $3 now? »
This is precisely why the FTCA recognized an exception for the Postal Service in the first place.
Follow Natalie Sandoval on X: @NatSandovalDC
