No Mail, No Remedy: Supreme Court Shields Postal Service From Lawsuits

What Happened

The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that Americans cannot sue the U.S. Postal Service even when employees deliberately refuse to deliver mail. The 5-4 decision came in a case brought by Lebene Konan, a Texas landlord who alleges postal workers intentionally withheld her mail for two years, claiming racial prejudice played a role in their actions.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the five conservative justices in the majority, said federal law that shields the Postal Service from lawsuits over missing, lost, or undelivered mail includes ‘the intentional non-delivery of mail.’

The ruling means that even when postal employees deliberately refuse to deliver mail, not accidentally lose it, but deliberately decide not to deliver it, Americans have no legal recourse in court.

Konan argued that her case should proceed because the non-delivery was intentional rather than accidental. The distinction mattered because federal law has long protected USPS from routine lawsuits over lost mail, which would otherwise overwhelm the agency with litigation.

But Konan contended that deliberate refusal to deliver mail should fall outside those protections. But the Court disagreed, as Thomas’s opinion interpreted the statutory language and found no exception for intentional misconduct by postal employees.

Why It Matters

The ruling eliminates accountability for postal employees who deliberately withhold mail, creating a legal shield that few other government agencies enjoy. If most other federal employees were to intentionally harm citizens, legal remedies would typically be available.

Missing mail can lead to missed bill payments, late fees or service cutoffs, lost prescription medications, absent voter registration materials, or undelivered government benefits. When these consequences result from deliberate employee misconduct rather than honest mistakes, the Court’s ruling says there’s simply no legal remedy available.

Discovered: 9.8 million tons of lithium

It’s no secret how important lithium is. Demand’s projected to 5X by 2040. Meanwhile, the world only produces ~300,000 tons annually.

That’s why a potential 9.8-million-ton discovery is catching attention. Even more intriguing? The company behind it: EnergyX. 

EnergyX’s tech can recover 3X more lithium than traditional methods. That’s already earned investments from General Motors, Eni and Posco and a $5M grant from the DoE.

Now they’re ready to scale their own production. Initial estimates showed EnergyX’s Chilean mining territory held 2.6M tons of lithium, but a third-party study revealed it could have as much as 9.8M tons.* 

Perfect timing, because you can now invest as they transition from testing to commercial. Learn how you can invest now before their share price increases from $11/share after February 26th. 

The decision also raises questions about how discrimination claims against postal employees can proceed. Konan alleged racial prejudice motivated the non-delivery, but if she can’t sue for the resulting damages, she has no recourse. Although civil rights laws may provide alternative paths, the Court’s ruling closes the door on straightforward tort claims regardless of the employee’s motivation.

The Trump administration argued that allowing lawsuits for intentional non-delivery would overwhelm the already financially struggling Postal Service with litigation. The majority agreed that the law's protection extends to deliberate non-delivery as well as accidental losses.

How It Affects You

If postal employees deliberately refuse to deliver your mail, whether due to discrimination, personal grudge, laziness, or any other reason, you cannot sue for damages. Missing an important document, medication, check, or bill creates real consequences, but the Postal Service faces no civil liability even when the non-delivery was intentional.

Should this happen, your only course of action would be to file complaints through USPS’s internal processes or, if the conduct violates federal mail tampering laws, to seek criminal prosecution. But recovering financial damages for harm caused by deliberately withheld mail is now off the table, regardless of how egregious the misconduct or how significant your losses.

Individuals who believe they were targeted in mail delivery decisions must look outside the courts for relief. Complaints can be pursued through existing civil rights laws or through the Postal Service’s internal administrative channels, but claims for monetary damages tied specifically to non-delivery are foreclosed under the Court’s ruling.

The decision has established a clear standard: disputes over mail handling are confined to statutory and administrative remedies, not private lawsuits for compensation.

*Disclaimer: Energy Exploration Technologies, Inc. (“EnergyX”) has engaged Shortlysts to publish this communication in connection with EnergyX’s ongoing Regulation A offering. Shortlysts has been paid in cash and may receive additional compensation. Shortlysts and/or its affiliates do not currently hold securities of EnergyX. This compensation and any current or future ownership interest could create a conflict of interest. Please consider this disclosure alongside EnergyX’s offering materials. EnergyX’s Regulation A offering has been qualified by the SEC. Offers and sales may be made only by means of the qualified offering circular. Before investing, carefully review the offering circular, including the risk factors. The offering circular is available at invest.energyx.com/.