Supreme Court sounds skeptical of late-arriving ballots, a Trump target

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority expressed skepticism Monday toward state laws that allow counting of mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, potentially affecting voting practices in more than a dozen states ahead of future elections.

During oral arguments in a Mississippi case, several conservative justices questioned whether late-arriving ballots could undermine election integrity, with Justice Samuel Alito specifically raising concerns about situations where “a big stash of ballots” arriving late might “radically flip” an election outcome.

The challenge could impact voters in 13 states and the District of Columbia that currently have grace periods for mail ballots. An additional 15 states with extended deadlines for military and overseas voters could also be affected by the court’s decision, expected by late June—in time to govern ballot counting procedures for the 2026 midterm elections.

Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart defended his state’s law, noting that the Trump administration and its allies have failed to present any evidence of fraud related to late-arriving mail ballots, despite persistent claims to the contrary.

The court’s liberal justices signaled support for allowing states to set their own ballot deadlines. Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized that “the people who should decide this issue are not the courts, but Congress, the states and Congress,” suggesting the matter falls under state authority rather than judicial oversight.

Election officials from across the country have warned that forcing states to change longstanding practices months before an election could lead to “confusion and disenfranchisement,” especially in jurisdictions that have operated with relaxed deadlines for years.

Several populous states, including California, Texas, New York, and Illinois, currently permit counting ballots that arrive after Election Day if postmarked by that date. Alaska also allows late-arriving ballots due to its vast geography and unpredictable weather conditions that can delay mail delivery.

The case represents part of former President Donald Trump’s broader criticism of mail-in voting. Last year, Trump signed an executive order aiming to require votes to be “cast and received” by Election Day, though this order has been temporarily blocked by pending court challenges. During the same period, four Republican-led states—Ohio, Kansas, North Dakota, and Utah—eliminated their ballot grace periods.

Justices from both ideological wings raised concerns about potential consequences of the ruling. Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested a slippery slope where ballots might be received until the start of the next Congress, two months after the election. Conversely, Justice Elena Kagan warned that the legal reasoning behind challenging late-arriving ballots could eventually be used to challenge early voting and all absentee ballots.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who appeared to be the conservative justice most sympathetic to Mississippi’s position, expressed concerns about potential limitations on early voting that might result from the case.

The specific legal question before the court is whether federal law establishes a single Election Day that requires ballots to be both cast by voters and received by state officials on that day. The case reached the Supreme Court after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Mississippi’s grace period, finding it violated federal law.

That unanimous ruling was issued by a panel of three judges—Andrew Oldham, James Ho, and Stuart Kyle Duncan—all appointed by Trump during his presidency. Their decision set the stage for this potentially consequential Supreme Court case that could reshape mail ballot practices nationwide.

As the justices deliberate, election officials across the affected states are closely monitoring the outcome, which could require significant adjustments to their voting systems and public education efforts before future elections.