Supreme Court Rules States Can Count Mail Ballots That Arrive After Election Day

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can continue counting mailed ballots that arrive after Election Day, as long as they were postmarked on time — a decision that hands a significant defeat to Donald Trump's years-long campaign against mail voting.

The 5-4 ruling rejected a Republican-led challenge to laws in more than half the states and Washington DC that allow late-arriving mail ballots to count, provided they're postmarked by Election Day. In just over half of those states, the more flexible deadlines apply specifically to military and overseas voters.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's three liberal justices. Barrett's reasoning centered on what federal election law actually says — and doesn't say.

"Federal laws setting a single Election Day leave open when those votes must be received," Barrett wrote, adding that if Congress wants a uniform national deadline for ballot receipt, lawmakers — not the courts — need to set it. "If varied deadlines for ballot receipt similarly call for a national solution, the American people must choose it through their elected representatives," she wrote.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissent, joined by three other justices, warning the decision was "inconsistent with statutory text, legal context, historical practice, and precedent" and could further erode public confidence in election integrity.

How the Case Got to the Supreme Court

The case originated in Mississippi, where state law allows ballots to be counted if they arrive within five business days of the election, as long as they're postmarked by Election Day. A federal appeals court in New Orleans struck that law down, prompting Mississippi — backed by the Trump administration, the Republican Party, and the Libertarian Party — to challenge it. The core legal question was whether federal law actually requires ballots to be both cast and physically received by Election Day, or whether states retain flexibility on the receipt deadline.

Monday's ruling answers that question in favor of state flexibility.

Why This Matters for the 2026 Midterms

The timing here is significant. With the 2026 midterm congressional elections approaching, a ruling against late-arriving ballots would have forced more than half the states to scramble and rewrite their election procedures on short notice — a logistical and legal headache that election officials across the political spectrum were dreading.

Stephen Richer, a Republican and former top election administrator for Arizona's Maricopa County, called the outcome a "sigh of relief" for election administrators broadly. He noted that a ruling for the Republican National Committee "would have created a whole host of administrative challenges for the affected states." Richer's perspective carries some weight here — Maricopa County became a flashpoint for 2020 election fraud claims, and Richer has been a vocal defender of election integrity processes even while facing significant political pressure from within his own party.

The Larger Fight Over Mail Voting

This case is one piece of a much broader push by Trump to restrict mail balloting nationally, a position rooted in his persistent and unsubstantiated claims that his 2020 loss to Joe Biden resulted from widespread fraud. More than 60 court decisions, including rulings from judges he appointed, found no merit to those claims. His own attorney general at the time also concluded there was no evidence of fraud significant enough to have changed the outcome.

Trump called Monday's ruling a "tremendous loss" and renewed pressure on Congress to pass the SAVE America Act — legislation that has cleared the House but remains stalled in the Senate. The bill would limit who is eligible to receive a mail ballot and add a documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement for voter registration.

"There is only one reason to oppose — CHEATING!" Trump wrote on Truth Social.

RNC Chairman Joe Gruters echoed the push for the legislation, arguing that "Election Day should mean exactly what it says."

What Happens Next

For now, the ruling preserves the status quo heading into 2026 — states that allow postmark-based mail ballot deadlines can continue doing so. But the broader fight over mail voting rules is clearly headed for Congress rather than the courts, with Barrett's opinion essentially inviting lawmakers to settle the question through legislation if they want a single national standard. Whether the SAVE America Act gains enough Senate support to advance remains an open question, and the political fight over mail voting access is likely to remain a defining issue heading into the midterm elections.

Curious for more stories that keep you informed and entertained? From the latest headlines to everyday insights, YourLifeBuzz has more to explore. Dive into what’s next.