USPS v. Konan
No. 24-351 · October Term 2025 · Judicial Power · decided February 24, 2026
Decided: USPS won 5-4. The model was right.
Expected vote 5–4 for USPS. Chance of a unanimous ruling 36%. FantasySCOTUS crowd: 55% USPS.
The case
Lebene Konan is suing the United States Postal Service and its employees, alleging that they intentionally withheld her mail and her tenants' mail, causing her financial losses and disruption. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed Konan's Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claim to proceed, ruling that the FTCA's postal-matter exception does not apply to intentional acts of non-delivery. The Supreme Court must now determine whether a claim of intentional non-delivery of mail falls under the FTCA's exception for claims arising out of "the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter."
- Does the Federal Tort Claims Act's exception for claims arising out of "loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter" apply to intentional acts of non-delivery?
- The interpretation of this exception will determine the scope of sovereign immunity for the United States Postal Service in cases involving alleged intentional withholding of mail.
- The Court will need to consider whether "loss" or "miscarriage" in the statute encompasses intentional acts, or if the specific inclusion of "negligent transmission" implies that intentional acts are not covered by this exception.
AI brief written by gemini-2.5-flash from the questions presented and the Oyez facts on 2026-10-02. Commentary only; it is not an input to the model.
Question presented, as filed
The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), ch. 753, 60 Stat. 842 (28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671 et seq .), generally waives the United States' sovereign immunity for suits seeking damages "for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission" of an employee of the federal government "under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred." 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1). The FTCA, however, excepts from that waiver of immunity "[a]ny claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter." 28 U.S.C. 2680(b). The question presented is as follows: Whether a plaintiff's claim that she and her tenants did not receive mail because Postal Service employees intentionally did not deliver it to a designated address arises out of "the loss" or "miscarriage" of letters or postal matter. 28 U.S.C. 2680(b).
Facts of the case (Oyez)
Lebene Konan, a Black property owner, leased two rental residences in Euless, Texas, and retrieved business and tenant mail from a central mailbox daily. In May 2020, United States Postal Service (USPS) employee Jason Rojas changed the lock on the mailbox at one of Konan's properties without her approval, halted mail delivery, and demanded ownership verification. Even after USPS’s Inspector General confirmed Konan’s ownership, Rojas and another USPS employee, Raymond Drake, allegedly continued marking mail addressed to Konan and her tenants as undeliverable. Konan claims this refusal of service extended to her second property and was racially motivated, causing loss of rental income and disruption of essential communications. Konan sued USPS, Rojas, Drake, and the United States, raising claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and alleging violations of the equal protection guarantees of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985. The district court dismissed her FTCA claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the postal-matter exception, and her equal protection claims for failure to state a claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the equal protection claims but reversed on the FTCA claim, holding that sovereign immunity did not bar claims based on intentional acts of mail non-delivery.
The nine
Each justice's predicted vote and the record behind it: how often they have voted for the petitioner overall, in Judicial Power cases, and when the lower court ruled liberal; and, once argued, how many questions they put to each side (the side a justice questions more tends to lose their vote). The note under each row is the AI brief's reading, commentary rather than model input.
| Justice | Predicted | Overall | This issue | Lower court liberal | At argument | Voted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
John G. Roberts Republican appointee · since OT2005 Chief Justice Roberts generally favors a textualist approach to statutory interpretation, which would focus on the plain meaning of the words "loss" and "miscarriage" in the context of the statute. His jurisprudence often reflects a concern for limiting waivers of sovereign immunity. | 59% USPS | 68% for the petitioner · 1,512 votes | 69% Judicial Power · 197 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 730 votes | 8 / 5 questions at USPS / Konan | USPS ✓ |
Clarence Thomas Republican appointee · since OT1991 Justice Thomas is a strong proponent of originalism and textualism, emphasizing the precise wording of statutes. He would likely scrutinize the historical understanding of "loss" and "miscarriage" in postal law and the scope of sovereign immunity waivers. | 59% USPS | 59% for the petitioner · 2,801 votes | 57% Judicial Power · 388 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 1,344 votes | 2 / 6 questions at USPS / Konan | USPS ✓ |
Samuel A. Alito Republican appointee · since OT2005 Justice Alito often takes a strict view on statutory interpretation and sovereign immunity, typically favoring interpretations that limit government liability unless a waiver is explicitly and unambiguously stated. He would likely focus on whether the text of the exception clearly excludes intentional acts. | 71% USPS | 62% for the petitioner · 1,469 votes | 65% Judicial Power · 190 votes | 79% lower court liberal · 699 votes | 1 / 10 questions at USPS / Konan | USPS ✓ |
Sonia Sotomayor Democratic appointee · since OT2009 Justice Sotomayor often considers the practical implications and potential injustices of strict statutory interpretations, particularly when they might disadvantage individuals. She might explore whether a narrow reading of the exception aligns with the broader remedial purpose of the FTCA. | 61% Konan | 61% for the petitioner · 1,192 votes | 58% Judicial Power · 149 votes | 48% lower court liberal · 560 votes | 18 / 1 questions at USPS / Konan | Konan ✓ |
Elena Kagan Democratic appointee · since OT2010 Justice Kagan often employs a pragmatic approach to statutory interpretation, considering legislative intent and the overall structure of a statute. She might examine whether Congress intended to shield the USPS from liability for intentional misconduct through this exception. | 61% Konan | 63% for the petitioner · 1,072 votes | 61% Judicial Power · 137 votes | 51% lower court liberal · 495 votes | 4 / 0 questions at USPS / Konan | Konan ✓ |
Neil M. Gorsuch Republican appointee · since OT2016 Justice Gorsuch is a textualist who emphasizes the ordinary public meaning of statutory language at the time of enactment. He would likely analyze the specific terms "loss," "miscarriage," and "negligent transmission" to determine if intentional non-delivery fits within their scope. | 59% USPS | 65% for the petitioner · 592 votes | 69% Judicial Power · 83 votes | 75% lower court liberal · 278 votes | 16 / 4 questions at USPS / Konan | Konan ✗ |
Brett M. Kavanaugh Republican appointee · since OT2018 Justice Kavanaugh often prioritizes clear statutory text and legislative intent. He would likely look for a clear indication in the FTCA's language or legislative history regarding whether intentional acts of non-delivery fall within the postal-matter exception. | 66% USPS | 69% for the petitioner · 498 votes | 73% Judicial Power · 62 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 235 votes | 6 / 15 questions at USPS / Konan | USPS ✓ |
Amy Coney Barrett Republican appointee · since OT2020 Justice Barrett is a textualist who focuses on the plain meaning of statutory language. She would likely analyze the specific words of the exception, particularly whether "loss" or "miscarriage" can reasonably be interpreted to include intentional withholding of mail. | 66% USPS | 66% for the petitioner · 360 votes | 71% Judicial Power · 49 votes | 76% lower court liberal · 168 votes | 0 / 3 questions at USPS / Konan | USPS ✓ |
Ketanji Brown Jackson Democratic appointee · since OT2022 Justice Jackson often considers the historical context and purpose of statutes, as well as their practical impact. She might examine the legislative history of the FTCA and its exceptions to understand the intended scope of the postal-matter exclusion, especially concerning intentional acts. | 56% USPS | 59% for the petitioner · 244 votes | 60% Judicial Power · 37 votes | 38% lower court liberal · 108 votes | 27 / 3 questions at USPS / Konan | Konan ✗ |
Rates are each justice's own participation record in the Supreme Court Database, the same history the model trains on; a rate on fewer than five votes is not shown. The predicted vote is VotePredictor SCOTUS' per-justice probability from the served model, which also reads the bench-wide transcript signal and how long each side held the podium.
Every call this term, justice by justice · how the model is built and its record. Data as of 2026-10-02.