The lawsuit was brought by the Republican National Committee, the Mississippi Republican Party, and several voters, who argued that allowing ballots to arrive after Election Day conflicts with federal statutes establishing one uniform Election Day for presidential and congressional elections. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with that position, the Supreme Court ultimately reversed the lower court’s decision.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts along with the Court’s three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—forming the five-justice majority.
Writing for the Court, Barrett concluded that federal election statutes “do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days thereafter; nothing in the federal election-day statutes requires ballots to be received by election day.”
Barrett explained the Court’s reasoning by focusing on the act of voting itself rather than the arrival of ballots. She wrote: “The defining element of an ‘election’ has always been the electorate’s choice of candidate… The electorate’s choice is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received.”
The majority opinion relied heavily on dictionary definitions of the word “election” as well as federal laws including the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA). According to Barrett, Congress established when voting must occur but intentionally left states with discretion over when properly cast absentee ballots must be received.
The Court also rejected arguments that longstanding historical practices requiring ballots to arrive by Election Day should control the outcome. Instead, the majority characterized those practices as policy choices rather than binding legal requirements. Concerns over election fraud and ballot security, the opinion stated, are matters better addressed by lawmakers than by federal courts.
For many conservatives, the ruling came as a surprise because Barrett, who was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Donald Trump, sided with the Court’s liberal wing rather than its conservative bloc. Her vote immediately drew criticism from many who had expected a stricter interpretation of federal election laws.
Justice Samuel Alito issued a forceful dissent, joined in full by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined most of the dissenting opinion.
Alito argued that the majority fundamentally undermined Congress’s decision to establish one nationwide Election Day. In his view, permitting ballots to arrive for days after voting ends effectively transforms “Election Day” into an extended voting period.
“The election-day statutes require the electorate’s choice to be authoritatively expressed through the completion and collection of ballots on election day,” Alito contended.
The dissent pointed to historical election practices dating back to the nineteenth century, including Civil War-era absentee voting laws that imposed firm deadlines. Alito also referenced legal dictionaries and prior court decisions that define an election as encompassing both the casting and official receipt of ballots.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Foster v. Love, Alito emphasized that an election consists of “the combined actions of voters and officials meant to make a final selection of an officeholder” within the federally established timeframe.
The dissent also warned about practical consequences, arguing that ballots arriving after Election Day could alter initially reported outcomes and undermine public confidence in election results. Alito suggested that large batches of late-arriving ballots could dramatically shift close races after many Americans believe voting has concluded.
According to the dissent, Congress enacted federal election deadlines specifically to avoid prolonged uncertainty and to reduce opportunities for confusion or perceived manipulation. Alito argued that existing federal law already reflects those policy judgments.
The legal dispute originated from lawsuits filed during the 2024 election cycle against Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson. Plaintiffs argued that federal statutes dating back to 1845 and 1872 require federal elections to conclude on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November, making post-Election Day ballot counting inconsistent with congressional intent.
Mississippi is among roughly thirty states that permit some absentee ballots to be counted after Election Day if they satisfy state requirements. While many of these policies expanded or received increased attention during the COVID-19 pandemic, critics have long argued that extended receipt periods increase opportunities for ballot disputes, chain-of-custody concerns, and other election administration issues.
Opponents of extended mail ballot deadlines contend that ballots arriving days after voting concludes receive less immediate public scrutiny than ballots cast in person. Questions surrounding postmarks, signature verification, and delayed ballot processing have fueled skepticism in closely contested elections where late-counted ballots have affected margins.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected to intensify the political debate surrounding election laws as Congress and state legislatures continue considering election reforms. House Republicans have advanced legislation such as the SAVE Act, which would require proof of U.S. citizenship for voter registration while also proposing additional election security measures affecting mail voting.
President Donald Trump and many of his allies have consistently argued for tighter election procedures, including expanded voter identification requirements, same-day voting wherever possible, and firm ballot deadlines. Following Monday’s ruling, supporters of those reforms are expected to renew calls for Congress and state legislatures to revisit federal election laws governing absentee voting ahead of future election cycles.
