A letter carrier with the U.S. Postal Service places a letter into a mailbox while out making deliveries on a residential street on the Treasure Coast on Aug. 5, 2023.
A United States Postal Service (USPS) van parks on E. Davenport Street during a delivery, Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2020, in Iowa City, Iowa.

WASHINGTON – As the Supreme Court on Oct. 8 discussed a woman’s claim that postal workers conducted a two-year campaign of racial harassment against her, one justice raised concerns about allowing lawsuits like hers to move forward.

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

The crux of the issue is whether the immunity Congress gave the U.S. Postal Service for mail delivery problems covers mere mistakes or also acts alleged to be intentional.

Landlord alleges postal workers refused to deliver mail

Lebene Konan, who rents out rooms in houses she owns in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, contends that postal workers refused to deliver mail to her or tenants for two years because they did not like the idea of a Black landlord renting to White people.

As a result, she said, some tenants moved out and others missed bills, medicine and other important mail.

Konan said she submitted more than 50 complaints to the Postal Service and asked the government watchdog over the Postal Service to intervene before seeking compensation in court.

Is refusing to deliver the mail protected?

A federal district judge said in 2023 she couldn’t sue. That’s because federal law protects the Postal Service from claims “arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.”

But when Konan appealed, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit said that protection doesn't cover a postal worker's refusal to deliver the mail, which is what Konan wants the chance to prove.

“Where USPS intentionally fails or refuses to deliver mail to designated addressees, and never mistakenly delivers the mail to a third party, the mail is not “miscarr[ied],” as it was not carried at all,” the appeals court said. “Konan’s claims are not barred because no miscarriage occurred.”

Justices debate meaning of 'loss' and 'miscarriage'

The federal government asked the Supreme Court to settle the issue.

Much of Wednesday’s debate centered on the meaning of the words “loss” and “miscarriage.”

Chief Justice John Roberts said “loss” doesn’t usually mean malfeasance.

“If somebody said, 'I lost the mail.' I wouldn’t think right away somebody stole it,” he said.

Frederick Liu, the Justice Department attorney representing the Postal Service, said “loss” may not always refer to intentional conduct, but it can.

But Justice Elena Kagan said the words “loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission” must be read in context with each other. They all, she said, convey a similar meaning of something happening mistakenly. “That’s the way that seems most natural to me to read this sentence,” she said of the law’s immunity protection.

Preventing a 'deluge' of lawsuits

And Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked the government’s lawyer why lawmakers would have wanted to protect the Postal Service from damages for intentional wrongdoing.

“Your argument indicates that Congress would have intended to immunize a Postal Service worker who tears up a person’s rent check or Social Security check in front of them on their porch, right there, intentionally,” she said.

Liu said Congress was trying to avoid a “deluge of suits.”

The Postal Service delivers more than 300 million pieces of mail per day and receives 300,000 customer complaints per year that allege misconduct, according to the government. If even 1% of those complaints become lawsuits, Lui said, the number of suits filed against the Postal Service would quadruple.

“Things like intent are easy to allege and hard to disprove,” he said of the difficulty of fighting those suits.

Alito tried to help Liu make that point, saying many people may think mail delivery problems are intentional.

“I didn’t get my mail because I didn’t give the mail carrier a tip at Christmas,” he offered as an example. “Or, I have a big dog that ran up to the door and scared the mail carrier at one point…or there’s some characteristic about me that the mail carrier doesn’t like.”

Did Congress want to give USPS 'wholesale' protection?

But Eash Anand, the lawyer representing Konan, said situations like hers − a person not getting mail for two years even after they've filed dozens of complaints − are rare.

And Anand pointed out that the government similarly warned about crippling lawsuits when the Supreme Court, in 2006, considered a case brought by a woman who tripped over mail left on her porch. Even though the court sided with the injured woman, the Postal Service wasn’t flooded with lawsuits, she said.

“We know Congress did not want to immunize USPS wholesale,” she said.

A decision in U.S. Postal Service v. Konan is expected by summer.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Her mail wasn't delivered because she's Black, she says. The Supreme Court is split.

Reporting by Maureen Groppe, USA TODAY / USA TODAY

USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect