SCOTUS Hears Out Racial Discrimination Lawsuit Against USPS

Some dumb lawsuits go all the way to the highest court in the land. 

Lebene Konan says United States Postal Service (USPS) employees intentionally refused to deliver mail to two rental properties that she owned because of a “single factor: They do not like the idea that a black person owns the Residences, and leases rooms in the Residences to white people.”

The Supreme Court isn’t evaluating Konan’s claims of racism. They’re evaluating whether Konan is legally entitled to bring a lawsuit against USPS in the first place. (RELATED: SCOTUS Appears Skeptical Of Colorado Law Forcing Counselors To Agree With Kids’ Gender Confusion)

The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) recognizes the government’s liability for the “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 believe that the Supreme Court’s immunity decision protects Obama from prosecution?”

LEAVITT: “He [Pres. Trump] wants to see all those who… pic.twitter.com/1bgZ12HIG3

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) July 23, 2025

There are exceptions to that liability. 

You can’t sue the federal government based on “any claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.”

As Justice Elena Kagan summarized, “The Postal Service lost your mail. Sorry, you can’t sue about 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 transmission”? 

Frederick Liu, assistant to the solicitor general, argued that Konan’s allegations do fall within the postal exception. 

In the first place, because Konan alleges a “miscarriage of mail.” 

In the second place, because Konan alleges the “loss of mail … her 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 typically convey … malfeasance involved. I mean, if I say I lost my car, people aren’t going to think somebody stole his car. They’re going to think I forgot where it was … In other words, it doesn’t say something bad has happened other than, you know, your own, you know, fact of paying attention to something.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed skeptical of Liu’s defense.

“What I’m suggesting is that [Konan’s] got claims here that really aren’t about the loss of the mail, right? So they’re not key to the failure of her mail to arrive. So the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, for example, seems related to her claim that postal employees carried out a campaign of racial harassment with respect to how they treated her mail.” (RELATED: Attorney Explains Free Speech To Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson)

🚨 Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s solo dissents directing sharp words at the Supreme Court’s majority may indicate she’s veering further left than even the other Democrat-appointed justices. pic.twitter.com/YGrDKc1i6o

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) July 14, 2025

Liu clarified that he was not arguing about the particulars of Konan’s other claims, just the specific claim that the FTCA exception should not apply to Konan’s case.

Konan’s evidence for racially motivated discrimination seems 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 at the property.”

Konan alleges, on information and belief, that Rojas “has not unilaterally changed the lock on any other residence owner’s address on his route; nor has he refused to deliver mail to residences owned by white people.”

“On information and belief” signifies only that Konan has been told something about Rojas’ conduct, and believes it. But how could Konan know such precise details of Rojas’ route? Presumably, he delivers to many residents in the Euless, Texas area. Has Konan questioned each and every one of them?

Konan claims “Rojas singled [her] out for discriminatory treatment because she is a successful African American woman and Rojas is not happy about the fact that she owns Residences that he is required to service.”

Konan complained that, while at the post office, she “was asked to confirm her identity, to explain who the actual owner of the Residence was and to provide information as to when she bought the Residence.” She claimed  “[n]o white person is subjected to that type of treatment.” 

Again — Is Konan omniscient? These sound like the suspicions of a woman grasping at straws.  

Do you think Supreme Court arguments should be televised? pic.twitter.com/Qf58CXpsdO

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) May 7, 2025

Consider the consequences of granting Konan’s argument. 

As Justice Samuel Alito asked, recapitulating Liu, is it “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 as opposed to negligent conduct?”

“I mean, a lot of people may think … that what’s happening is intentional. I don’t get my mail because I didn’t give the mail carrier a tip at Christmas, or I have a big dog that ran up to the door and scared — scared the mail carrier on one point, or … or she — she or he looked askance at my holiday decorations, or there’s some characteristic about me that the mail carrier doesn’t like. Is that going to be hard?”

Probably not. Opposing counsel granted that if a person believed their neighbors were getting better service from the USPS for a period of two years, they could “get past the pleading stage” in a lawsuit.

“And what will the consequences be if all these suits are filed and they have to be litigated?” Alito asked. “Is the cost of a first class letter going to be $3 now?”

This is precisely why the FTCA recognized an exception for mail service in the first place. 

Follow Natalie Sandoval on X: @NatSandovalDC