On June 29, the Supreme Court upheld Mississippi’s law allowing ballots cast by Election Day to be counted if they arrive within five days—delivering a loss to President Donald Trump’s push to limit mail-in voting. The court’s 5-4 decision turned on a core leg
For President Donald Trump, the late-arriving ballots never stopped being a flashpoint. Just days after the Supreme Court considered Mississippi’s rules, the court effectively answered the argument he had been pressing: ballots mailed by Election Day could still be counted later.
On June 29, the Supreme Court said Mississippi can count late-arriving mail-in ballots, handing a defeat to Trump in his effort to curtail voting by mail. The decision upheld a state law allowing ballots cast by Election Day to be counted if they’re received within five days.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s three liberal justices in upholding the law in a 5-4 majority decision.
Barrett’s reasoning focused on federal timing rules that Trump and allies had relied on. She wrote that the federal law doesn’t set a deadline for ballots to be received. meaning Mississippi’s approach doesn’t conflict with federal requirements. “The question today is not whether requiring ballots to be received by election day is a good or bad idea; the question is whether the idea has made its way into the United States Code. ” Barrett wrote.
The ruling matters beyond Mississippi because it lands in a voting landscape where many states have adopted similar “grace period” systems. More than a dozen states have comparable laws, and additional states allow late-arriving ballots from military and overseas voters.
Voting by mail has fallen from its peak during the COVID-19 pandemic, but it remains a significant channel: nearly 30% of voters cast a ballot by mail in the 2024 elections. Democrats are more likely than Republicans to vote by mail.
Trump has targeted mail-in voting for years. Supporters of mail-in voting argue it makes participation easier for people including retirees, service members, and rural residents, and that grace periods prevent voters from losing their votes due to postal delays.
Trump has long railed against mail-in voting as vulnerable to fraud, repeatedly claiming—without evidence—that it cost him the 2020 election. Separately, he has tried to end both grace periods and mail-in voting altogether through an executive order and by pressuring Congress to pass legislation.
The federal government also backed legal challenges to Mississippi’s law. The Justice Department backed challenges brought by both the Republican Party and the Libertarian Party to the state’s approach.
At the heart of the case was a dispute over a deceptively simple question: what counts as the moment an “election” has occurred.
Federal law sets a specific date for U.S. elections, but the legal argument turned on how to define when that election has taken place. The Republican Party and the Trump administration argued that the election is the day by which ballots must be received. Mississippi argued that the election is when voters choose a candidate—so a ballot cast in the mail by Election Day can be received afterward.
Critics and defenders both know how combustible that difference can become when outcomes are close.
Documented instances of fraud tied to voting by mail are rare, according to the Election Data & Science Lab from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A 2025 report from the Brookings Institution estimated there are about four cases of fraud for every 10 million mail-in votes.
Still. when ballots counted after Election Day affect the result of a race. critics say it can fuel doubts about legitimacy even in the absence of fraud. Paul Clement. the attorney for the Republican Party. told the Supreme Court that if results flip weeks later. “the losers are not going to accept that result. ” adding: “And that is bad for our system.”.
There is also another thread pulling at the Supreme Court’s calendar. Watson v. Republican National Committee is not the only election-related matter the justices considered this term. In a landmark decision. the court gutted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. a move that led GOP-led states to scramble to draw new congressional maps benefiting Republicans.
The justices are also deciding whether to overturn restrictions on coordinated spending between parties and candidates—another change sought by Republicans.
In the immediate aftermath of the June 29 ruling, the message to Trump’s mail-voting push was clear: Mississippi’s five-day receipt window is staying in place, at least for now, and the Supreme Court’s majority was not persuaded that federal law requires ballots to arrive by Election Day.
Supreme Court Mississippi late-arriving ballots mail-in voting Donald Trump Amy Coney Barrett John Roberts Watson v. Republican National Committee Election Data & Science Lab Brookings Institution Voting Rights Act coordinated spending
So like… they’re counting ballots that are late? That seems sketchy.
I’m confused why Trump even bothered then. If the Supreme Court says it’s fine, then what was the big deal. Also 5 days is a lot longer than I thought.
Wait I thought this was about banning mail ballots? But it sounds like it’s basically allowing them as long as they show up. So which one is it, defeat or win? Seems like people just keep saying whatever headline fits them.
Roberts joining the liberals is wild to me, like I don’t get it. They’re saying federal law doesn’t require receipt by election day but I feel like it kinda does in practice? And grace period laws… I swear this stuff always ends up “rules for me not for thee” depending on who’s winning.