Some unusual lawsuits make their way to the Supreme Court.

Levene Konan argues that USPS employees intentionally withheld mail from her two rental properties due to racial bias, claiming they objected to a black person owning a home and renting to a white tenant.

The Court hasn’t yet evaluated her claims of racial discrimination; instead, they’re looking into whether she has the right to sue the USPS at all.

The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) allows for government liability for the negligent or wrongful actions of officials acting within their duties.

However, there’s a notable exception. You can’t sue the federal government for issues related to lost, delayed, or wrongly sent mail.

Justice Elena Kagan remarked, “The post office lost your mail. We’re sorry, but we can’t sue you for it.”

The question arises: if a USPS employee did indeed harass Konan as she alleges, does that fall under the category of “lost, delayed, or negligence”?

Assistant Attorney General Frederick Liu maintained that her claims do fall within this mail exception.

Konan contends she “mistakenly ingested the mail,” and her complaint explicitly refers to the mail being “lost.”

Chief Justice John Roberts raised whether the typical understanding of “loss” could encompass Konan’s claims, noting, “But lost usually doesn’t convey that foul play is involved. If I say I lost my car, people tend to think I forgot where it was—not that someone stole it.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed doubt about Liu’s argument, suggesting that Konan’s case could be viewed as more than just lost mail. She indicated that a claim of intentional emotional distress is pertinent if postal staff harassed her based on race.

Liu clarified he wasn’t addressing Konan’s broader claims, only the argument regarding the FTCA exception’s applicability.

Evidence for Konan’s racial discrimination claims seems to be lacking. She claims a USPS mail carrier altered the ownership of her property without her consent, and that he treated her differently based on her race.

Konan asserts that this same carrier never changed locks or withheld mail from white homeowners on his route.

However, it raises questions about how she could have that knowledge. Did she interview all the other residents he served?

She further alleges that during her interactions at the post office, she was treated differently compared to white individuals.

Is Konan completely certain about this? It feels like she might be reaching for a justification.

Considering the implications of accepting her claims is important. Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that allowing claims based on possible intentional acts could lead to a flood of lawsuits.

He questioned whether dissent over mail delivery could lead people to argue they didn’t get their letters due to intentional misconduct rather than simple negligence, suggesting that anecdotal perceptions might drive litigation.

What if many people believed their mail was mishandled for personal reasons rather than genuine faults? This could spiral into complaints based on minor grievances.

Alito also cautioned against the broader consequences of such lawsuits, pondering whether it might drive up costs for mailing services.

This is precisely why the FTCA includes an exception for postal service issues.