Business

Supreme Court to hear Texas landlord’s lawsuit against the Post Office for failing to deliver mail for 2 years

Published

2 months ago

November 26, 2025

As a general rule, it’s difficult to sue the U.S. Postal Service for lost, delayed or mishandled mail.

But a case before the U.S. Supreme Court involving a Texas landlord who alleges her mail was deliberately withheld for two years is looking to challenge that, in a proceeding the cash-strapped Postal Service says could prompt a deluge of lawsuits over the very common, if frustrating, phenomenon of missing mail. That concern takes on particular resonance during the holiday season, when the volume of mail — billions of sentimental items from Christmas cards to Black Friday purchases — ramps up.

The case focuses on whether the special postal exemption to the Federal Tort Claims Act applies when postal employees intentionally fail to deliver letters and packages.

“We’re going to be faced with, I think, a ton of suits about mail,” Frederick Liu, assistant to the Solicitor General for the Department of Justice, warned the justices during oral arguments last month. He predicted that if the landlord wins the case, people will infer their mail didn’t arrive “because of a rude comment that they heard, or what have you.”

The federal tort law allows a private individual to sue the federal government for monetary damages if a federal employee hurts them or damages their property by acting negligently.

But Congress created multiple exceptions to the law, including one for the Postal Service, shielding it from lawsuits over missing or late mail. The exception says the post office can’t be sued for “loss, miscarriage or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.” Definitions of those words have become the crux of the case before the Supreme Court.

Last month, some justices appeared to question the government’s claim that USPS is shielded from such lawsuits. But concern was expressed about opening the doors to frivolous litigation. Justice Samuel Alito suggested people might believe carriers intentionally didn’t deliver mail because they didn’t receive a tip at Christmas or they were scared by a “big dog that ran up to the door.”

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

A two-year battle over missing mail

Easha Anand, a lawyer for the landlord, has accused the government of “fearmongering about endless litigation.” She argued it’s unusual for someone to experience the level of mistreatment Lebene Konan did and contends the USPS would still retain immunity for most postal matter-related harms even if the court rules in the landlord’s favor.

“These sorts of allegations, I think, will be rare,” she said in court.

Konan, a landlord, real estate agent and insurance agent, claims two employees at a post office in Euless, Texas, part of the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, deliberately didn’t deliver mail belonging to her and her tenants because she alleges they didn’t like that she is Black and owns multiple properties.

According to court documents, the dispute began when Konan discovered the mailbox key for one of her rental properties had been changed without her knowledge, preventing her from collecting and distributing tenants’ mail from the box. When she contacted the local post office, she was told she wouldn’t receive a new key or regular delivery until she proved she owned the property. She did so, the documents say, but the mail problems continued, despite the USPS Inspector General instructing the mail to be delivered.

Konan alleges the employees marked some of the mail as undeliverable or return to sender. Konan and her tenants failed to receive important mail such as bills, medications and car titles, according to the lawsuit. Konan also claims she lost rental income because some tenants moved out due to the situation.

After filing dozens of complaints with postal officials, Konan finally filed a lawsuit under the 1946 Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which has now made its way to the nation’s highest court. A decision in the case is expected to be issued next year.

Konan, reached by email, declined to comment while the case was still pending, on advice of her lawyer.

Does the postal exemption apply or not?

While a federal district court in Texas dismissed Konan’s FTCA claims, arguing they fell under the postal exemption, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed part of that decision last year.

The judges disagreed with the lower court’s determination that Konan’s claims were precluded because they arose out of a “loss” or a “miscarriage.” Rather, the judges said Konan’s case doesn’t fall into one of those “limited situations” because it involved the intentional act of not delivering the mail.

“Because the conduct alleged in this case does not fall squarely within the exceptions for ‘loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission,’ sovereign immunity does not bar Konan’s FTCA claims,” the judges wrote.

The appellate court sided with the lower court’s decision to dismiss Konan’s separate claim against the individual postal workers.

The USPS, which declined to comment, appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Kevin Kosar, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a public policy think tank, who studies postal matters, said he believes it’s incorrect for the government to argue the postal exemption covers the intentional failure to deliver mail.

Kosar said he also doubts there will be a deluge of lawsuits if the court rules narrowly in the case, questioning whether aggrieved postal customers could even find an attorney willing to sue the USPS.

He asked: “What lawyer, for example, wants to file a suit and spends years in the courts because someone spent 78 cents on a first-class stamp and their letter got lost?”

Source link

Business

What a Walmart CEO contender’s exit reveals about when to move on

Published

10 minutes ago

January 20, 2026

Jace Porter

There’s no such thing as a silver medal in a CEO succession race.

In November, Walmart named U.S. chief John Furner as its next CEO, crowning him the sixth leader in the history of the world’s largest retailer. The decision also quietly closed the door on another highly regarded contender for the corner office: Kath McLay, Walmart International’s CEO and a decade-long veteran of the company. On Thursday, Walmart disclosed that McLay would depart, staying on briefly to ensure a smooth transition.

The sequence was swift, orderly, and entirely unsurprising to those who study corporate succession. Boards rarely say it out loud, but experienced executives understand intuitively that once a CEO is chosen, the long-term prospects for previously whispered-about internal candidates dim almost immediately as power consolidates around the new chief executive.

That’s why many of the most ambitious leaders in American business don’t linger after a succession decision. They move deliberately, and often quickly, because the moment immediately after a board makes its choice is paradoxically when a near-CEO executive’s market value is at its peak. The executive has just been validated at the highest level—close enough to be seriously considered for the top job—without yet absorbing the reputational drag that can follow prolonged proximity to a decision that didn’t go their way.

In that narrow window, the story is still about capability. Search firms and directors see a leader who was trusted with scale, complexity, and board scrutiny, not someone who failed to clear the final hurdle.

When Jeff Immelt was named CEO of General Electric in 2001, the decision concluded one of the most closely watched succession contests in modern corporate history. Among the executives developed as credible successors was Bob Nardelli, then president and CEO of GE Power Systems. Nardelli didn’t stay to see how it might play out. Within months, he left GE to become Home Depot’s CEO.

A decade later, a different scenario unfolded at Apple, but with a similar outcome. Retail chief Ron Johnson had transformed Apple’s stores into an industry-defining, highly profitable global business and was widely viewed internally as CEO-caliber. Apple’s board had long centered its succession plans on Tim Cook, and when Cook was formally named successor to Steve Jobs, it effectively closed the door on a CEO path for Johnson. He left soon after to take the top job at J.C. Penney.

The executives who leave quickly aren’t being disloyal; they’re being realistic. Remaining too long after a succession decision can quietly erode an executive’s standing, both internally and externally, as the narrative shifts from “next in line” to “still waiting.”

At Ford Motor Co., president Joe Hinrichs was widely viewed as a leading CEO contender. When the board selected Jim Hackett in 2017, Hinrichs left not long afterward. Five years later, he resurfaced as CEO of transportation company CSX. Similarly, several senior Disney executives left or were sidelined after Bob Chapek was chosen as CEO in 2020. Most notably, Kevin Mayer, Disney’s head of direct-to-consumer and international, and a widely assumed CEO contender, departed within months to briefly become CEO of TikTok.

There are exceptions. But they tend to follow a different arc.

Although longtime Nike insider Elliott Hill was not passed over in a formal succession contest, he was widely viewed as CEO-ready when the board opted for an external hire in 2020. Hill stayed on for several years and later retired. Only after performance pressures mounted and the company embarked on a strategic reset did Nike’s board reverse course, asking Hill to return as CEO in 2024. Even then, such boomerangs remain exceedingly rare.

McLay’s departure from Walmart fits the dominant pattern. By exiting promptly while remaining to support a defined transition, she preserves both her reputation and her leverage. She leaves as an executive who was close enough to be seriously considered—not one who stayed long enough to be diminished by the process.

Join us at the Fortune Workplace Innovation Summit May 19–20, 2026, in Atlanta. The next era of workplace innovation is here—and the old playbook is being rewritten. At this exclusive, high-energy event, the world’s most innovative leaders will convene to explore how AI, humanity, and strategy converge to redefine, again, the future of work. Register now.

Source link

Business

Crypto market reels in face of tariff turmoil, Bitcoin falls below $90,000 as key legislation stalls

Published

41 minutes ago

January 20, 2026

Jace Porter

If you don’t like the price of Bitcoin, wait five minutes, and it will change. The major cryptocurrency’s volatility has been on full display to start the year, this time dipping about 7% since last week to its current price of just under $90,000 as of mid-day Tuesday.

Other cryptocurrencies have also slid. Ethereum is down 11% in the last six days to its current price of about $3,000, and Solana is down about 14% during that time to its price of about $127.

The dip comes as President Donald Trump threatened European nations with tariffs as they pushed back against his plans to take over Greenland, causing markets to scramble. Meanwhile, crypto markets faced an additional headwind as key legislation for the industry, known as the Clarity Act, became stalled after industry giant Coinbase unexpectedly withdrew its support late last week.

“President Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on Europe has put Bitcoin under pressure,” said Russell Thompson, chief investment officer at Hilbert Group. “The postponement of the Clarity Act in the Senate committee mainly due to concerns from Coinbase eliminated a large amount of positive sentiment in the market.”

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong objected to the Clarity Act primarily on grounds that crypto owners would not be able to earn yield from stablecoins. The new uncertainty over the bill, which many assumed was on a smooth path towards a Presidential signature, has shaken the price not just of crypto assets but also the share price of companies exposed to digital assets.

It’s uncertain whether the current headwinds will fade anytime soon. Trump has made his intentions of taking control of Greenland clear. When a group of European nations expressed solidarity with the Danish, he threatened those countries with tariffs, saying he would not back down until Greenland was purchased. Bitcoin and other risk assets subsequently fell, along with major stock indices, while the price of gold rose.

It’s not all gloom and doom for crypto, at least according to some analysts, who view Bitcoin’s correlation with macroeconomic forces as confirmation that digital assets have finally gone mainstream.

“Bitcoin’s reactivity is another sign of its increasing integration with broader macroeconomic forces, signaling maturation rather than fragility, even as short-term volatility continues,” said Beto Aparicio, senior manager of strategic finance at Offchain Labs.

Source link

Business

The 9 most disruptive deals of Trump’s first year back in the White House

Published

1 hour ago

January 20, 2026

Jace Porter

President Trump lives on deals: “That’s what I do—I do deals,” he once told Bob Woodward. On the one-year anniversary of his second presidency, he’s pushing hard to make his biggest, most disruptive deal ever, one that would bring Greenland under the control of the U.S.—and the global business community is still scrambling to adapt to his approach. Here are nine of Trump’s most unorthodox deals from the past year.

Nine deals that shook the business world

April 2, 2025: Reciprocal tariffs

Trump imposes “reciprocal tariffs” on 57 countries, with each tariff understood as an opening bid in a negotiation. Several countries have since made deals. The one-on-one negotiations, unlike the multilateral system of the past 80 years, can be chaotic for companies and economies

June 13: U.S. Steel “Golden Share”

In return for allowing Nippon Steel to buy U.S. Steel, Trump requires that the U.S. receive several powers over the company, including total power over all the board’s independent directors and vetoes over locations of offices and factories.

July 10: MP Materials

The U.S. pays $400 million for a large equity share in MP and signs a contract to buy all of MP’s rare earth magnets for 10 years. The reason for the equity stake was not disclosed.

July 14: Nvidia, Part 1

JADE GAO—AFP/Getty Images

Trump reverses the U.S. ban on selling Nvidia H20 chips to China in exchange for Nvidia paying the U.S. 15% of the revenue.

July 23: Columbia University

The Trump administration restores $400 million of canceled federal research funding for the university under an unprecedented multipoint deal. For example, Columbia must supply data to the federal government for all applicants, broken down by race, “color,” GPA, and standardized test performance. A few other schools later make similar deals.

August 6: Apple

At a public appearance with Trump, CEO Tim Cook announces Apple will invest an additional $100 billion in the U.S. over four years; Trump announces Apple will be exempt from a planned tariff on imported chips that would have doubled the price of iPhones in the U.S.

August 22: Intel

Intel trades the U.S. government a 9.9% equity stake in exchange for $8.9 billion that might already be owed to Intel under the CHIPS and Science Act. The deal is unusual because the company was not in immediate danger or significantly affecting the economy.

December 8: Nvidia, Part 2:

Trump reverses the U.S. ban on selling powerful Nvidia H200 chips in exchange for Nvidia paying the U.S. 25% of the revenue. Both Nvidia deals are unusual because the payments to the U.S., based on exports, appear to be forbidden by the Constitution.

December 19: Pharma

Nine pharmaceutical companies make deals with Trump that are intended to lower drug prices. This is unusual because Trump negotiated separate deals with each company, and the terms have not been released.

All eyes this week will be watching President Trump at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where the president has hinted he’ll announce some high-stakes agreements. Expect the unexpected.

A version of this piece appears in the February/March 2026 issue of Fortune.

Source link