发布于 2026 年 2 月 24 日,美国东部时间上午 10:53 / 来源:CNN
作者:约翰·弗里茨(John Fritze)、德文·科尔(Devan Cole)

2024 年 8 月 23 日,加利福尼亚州格伦代尔市的一个邮局,美国邮政服务(USPS)的卡车停放在那里。
马里奥·塔马(Mario Tama)/盖蒂图片社
周二,美国最高法院驳回了一名得州女子对美国邮政署的诉讼请求。该女子声称,邮政署因她是黑人而故意扣留其邮件。
克拉伦斯·托马斯大法官撰写的 5:4 多数意见裁定,联邦法律豁免美国邮政署免受此类诉讼,即使在邮差故意拒绝投递的情况下也不例外。
“考虑到邮政工作人员与公民互动的频繁程度,这类诉讼会频繁发生,给政府和法院带来巨大负担,”托马斯代表多数派写道。
得州房地产经纪人和房东莱贝内·科南(Lebene Konan)声称,美国邮政署多年来因“种族动机的骚扰活动”而故意拒绝投递她的邮件。
[相关文章 上排:首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨、大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯和塞缪尔·阿利托;下排:大法官尼尔·戈萨奇、布雷特·卡瓦诺和艾米·科尼·巴雷特 美国有线电视新闻网/盖蒂图片社 最高法院保守派一致反对拜登。以下是他们为何反对特朗普的原因 7 分钟阅读]
科南称,覆盖她在达拉斯郊区拥有的两处出租物业的邮局更换了她邮箱的锁,并拒绝向该物业投递邮件。她声称,这是因为邮差和邮政局长“不喜欢一个黑人拥有这些物业”的想法。根据法院记录,她提交了 50 多份行政投诉,并收到了邮政部门的书面确认,称她有权收到邮件。
科南说,有一次,当地邮政官员在她的邮箱上贴了一个红色大字的告示,宣布不会向她的租户投递邮件。
得州联邦地区法院批准了美国邮政署驳回此案的请求。虽然美国人通常可以就政府造成的伤害起诉政府,但国会为涉及“邮件丢失、误递或过失投递”的索赔划出了例外。联邦法院认为,科南遭遇的情况属于该豁免范围。
但总部位于新奥尔良的第五巡回上诉法院推翻了这一裁决,允许诉讼继续进行。上诉法院裁定,该豁免条款旨在涵盖邮件的非故意丢失及类似问题——而非故意行为。最高法院周二的裁决推翻了上诉法院的这一决定。
支持科南的倡导者表示,此案不仅关乎邮件投递,还关乎确保美国人在政府故意造成伤害时拥有起诉权。
“多数派认为,邮政例外条款涵盖并保护故意不投递邮件的行为,即使这种不投递是出于恶意动机,”索尼娅·索托马约尔大法官在异议意见中写道。“由于这种解释扩大了例外条款的范围,超出了其合理支持的程度,并在此过程中削弱了联邦侵权索赔法(FTCA)的广泛豁免权,我恭敬地表示异议。”
索托马约尔的异议得到了保守派大法官尼尔·戈萨奇以及自由派大法官埃琳娜·卡根和凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊的支持。
首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨与塞缪尔·阿利托、布雷特·卡瓦诺和艾米·科尼·巴雷特大法官加入了托马斯的多数派意见。
司法部告诉最高法院,邮件被扣留是出于技术原因。它称,科南被要求提供其当前租户的名录,但她未能做到。最高法院并未就邮政官员扣留邮件是否合理进行审理——这一问题将由下级法院裁决。
“在此案中,没有指控科南的邮件被销毁或因非故意行为而丢失,”上诉法院在一份一致通过的意见中裁定,“相反,事实表明,在两年时间内,一直存在故意不投递科南邮件的行为。”
[相关文章 美国最高法院在华盛顿特区,2026 年 1 月 14 日星期三。肯特·西村/彭博社/盖蒂图片社 最高法院将裁定科罗拉多市能否起诉石油公司应对气候变化 2 分钟阅读]
政府指出,2023 财年,美国邮政服务向全国超过 1.66 亿个投递点投递了超过 1160 亿件邮件。政府表示,如果法院采纳科南的立场,可能会使美国邮政署面临大量诉讼。
这一论点似乎在 10 月的口头辩论中引起了阿利托的共鸣。
“如果所有这些诉讼都被提起并必须进行审理,后果会怎样?”阿利托曾问,“现在第一类邮件的邮费会涨到 3 美元吗?”
Supreme Court fails to deliver for Texas woman who claims Postal Service withheld mail because she is Black
Published Feb 24, 2026, 10:53 AM ET / Source: CNN
By John Fritze, Devan Cole
U.S. Postal Service (USPS) trucks are parked at a post office on August 23, 2024 in Glendale, California.
Mario Tama/Getty Images
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against a Texas woman who is attempting to sue the Postal Service, claiming it withheld her mail because she is Black.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the 5-4 opinion ruling that federal law exempts the USPS from such lawsuits even in some cases where mail carriers intentionally refuse delivery.
“Given the frequency of postal workers’ interactions with citizens, those suits would arise so often that they would create a significant burden for the government and the courts,” Thomas wrote for the majority.
Lebene Konan, a Texas real estate agent and landlord, claimed that the USPS has for years intentionally declined to deliver her mail because of a “racially motivated harassment campaign.”
[Related article Top row: Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito; bottom row: Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett CNN/Getty Supreme Court conservatives were united against Biden. Here’s why they split against Trump 7 min read]
Konan alleged the post office that covers two rental properties she owns in suburban Dallas changed the lock on her post office box and then declined to deliver the mail to the property. She claimed that happened because the carrier and postmaster did not “like the idea that a Black person” owned the properties. She filed more than 50 administrative complaints, according to court records, and received written confirmation from postal authorities that she was entitled to have her mail delivered.
At one point, Konan said, local postal officials taped a sign to her mailbox announcing in bright red letters that they would not deliver the mail to her tenants.
A federal district court in Texas granted the USPS’ request to dismiss the case. While Americans may generally sue the government for harms that it causes, Congress carved out an exception for claims involving the “loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission” of mail. The federal court reasoned that what happened to Konan was covered by that exemption.
But the New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, allowing the lawsuit to proceed. The exemption, the appeals court ruled, was intended to cover unintentional loss of mail and similar problems – not intentional acts. The Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday threw out that appeals court decision.
Advocates on Konan’s side said the case was about more than just the delivery of mail, but also about ensuring that Americans have the ability to sue the government when it intentionally causes harm.
“The majority concludes that the postal exception captures, and therefore protects, the intentional nondelivery of mail, even when that nondelivery was driven by malicious reasons,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent. “Because this interpretation expands the scope of the exception beyond what it can reasonably support, and undermines the FTCA’s sweeping waiver in the process, I respectfully dissent.”
Sotomayor was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, a conservative, and two other liberals, Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined Thomas in the majority.
The Justice Department told the Supreme Court that the mail was withheld for a technical reason. Konan, it said, was required to maintain a directory of her current tenants and failed to do so. Whether the postal officials were justified in withholding the mail was not at issue at the Supreme Court – and will now be decided by lower courts.
“Here, there are no allegations that Konan’s mail was destroyed or that it was misplaced by unintentional action,” the appeals court ruled in a unanimous opinion. “Instead, the facts present a continued, intentional effort not to deliver Konan’s mail over a two-year period.”
[Related article The US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2026. Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg/Getty Images Supreme Court to decide if Colorado city can sue oil companies for climate change 2 min read]
In fiscal year 2023, the US Postal Service delivered more than 116 billion pieces of mail to more than 166 million delivery points across the nation, the government noted. If courts embraced Konan’s position, the government said, it could open up the USPS to a flood of lawsuits.
That was an argument that appeared to resonate with Alito during the oral arguments in October.
“What will the consequences be if all these suits are filed and they have to be litigated?” Alito asked at one point. “Is the cost of the first-class letter going to be $3 now?”
发表回复