Some bizarre lawsuits end up at the highest court in the country. Levene Konan claims that USPS workers actively chose not to deliver mail to her two rental properties because, well, they weren’t comfortable with the idea of a Black person owning a home while renting a room to a white person.
The Supreme Court hasn’t really addressed the racial discrimination allegations yet; they’re more focused on whether Konan even has the standing to sue the USPS to begin with. It’s kind of a foundational question here.
The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) does hold the government accountable for negligent actions taken by officials in the line of duty. However, there’s a catch. You can’t sue the federal government if the issue involves lost, misplaced, or inadvertently handled letters or mail.
Justice Elena Kagan made a point: “The post office lost your mail. We’re sorry, but we can’t take legal action for that.”
Then there’s a major question: If a USPS employee did indeed harass Konan as she alleged, does that fit the definition of “lost, misplaced, or negligent handling?”
Assistant Attorney General Frederick Liu contended that Konan’s case falls under that mail exception. For one thing, Konan suggests that mail was “ingested by mistake,” and her complaint even mentions that the mail was “lost.”
Chief Justice John Roberts raised an interesting point about the typical understanding of “lost.” He said if he claimed he lost his car, people wouldn’t assume it was stolen; they’d think he simply misplaced it. “It’s not like you can just say something wrong happened aside from the fact that you didn’t pay attention to it,” he remarked.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed doubtful of Liu’s defense. She suggested that, conceptually, Konan’s claims might not relate to lost mail at all. Instead, they could involve allegations of intentional emotional distress due to a pattern of racial harassment regarding her mail.
Liu clarified he was focusing solely on the FTCA exception, not delving into Konan’s other claims. But evidence of discriminatory behavior appears shaky at best. Konan alleges a USPS employee named Raymond Rojas “changed the designated ownership of one of her properties,” telling a white male resident about it.
She asserts that Rojas “never changed the locks on other homes” and didn’t refuse mail delivery to white-owned residences. Yet, her claims are somewhat vague—she seems to be relying on “information and belief,” which suggests secondhand knowledge, which raises questions. How does she know those specifics about Rojas’ route? Did she really talk to every homeowner?
Konan believes that Rojas is, in essence, targeting her because she is a successful Black woman who owns a home. While at the post office, she claims she was treated differently, having to provide personal information and justify her ownership. “I don’t think white people get that kind of treatment,” she said.
But again, one has to wonder—could Konan actually know these details for certain? It almost sounds like someone trying to connect dots that don’t lead anywhere.
There are serious implications for accepting Konan’s claims. Justice Samuel Alito posed a key question: “Is it really that easy for dissatisfied customers to blame intentional acts for their mail issues instead of mere negligence?”
He noted how many might think their mail went missing due to various reasons: perhaps they didn’t tip their mail carrier, or maybe their dog startled the delivery person. “Is that something people might genuinely believe?”
Perhaps not—opposing attorneys have suggested that if people felt their neighbors were getting better USPS service, they might pursue cases on that basis.
Alito raised an important point: “If too many lawsuits come flooding in, what would be the cost of mailing letters? Would first-class postage end up being $3?”
This is precisely why the FTCA has those exceptions for mail services in the first place.
