U.S. Supreme Court rejects Trump-led challenge against mail-in ballots

The U.S. Sublime margaret court on mon ruled that states put up number ballots that arrive after election day, a persistent target of President Donald Trump.

The 5-4 decision rejected a Republican-led attack on laws in more than half the states and the District of Columbia that permit mailed ballots to arrive and be counted some number of days after the election, provided they are postmarked by election day. The outcome spares officials the headache of changing their ballot rules just a few months before the 2026 midterm congressional elections.

In just over half those states, the more forgiving deadlines apply only to ballots cast by military and overseas voters.

Trump's pledge to scrap mail-in voting could throw U.S. Elections into a tailspin

The legal challenge was part of Trump's broader attack on most mail balloting, which he has said breeds fraud despite strong evidence to the contrary and years of experience in numerous states. Trump has repeatedly claimed that his loss to Joe Biden in 2020 resulted from fraud even though more than 60 court decisions and his own attorney general said that argument had no merit.

The truth behind Trump’s push to ban mail-in voting | About That

Restricting mail-in ballots could disproportionately benefit Republicans given ⁠that Democratic voters traditionally have been more likely to ⁠use mail-in ballots than Republican voters.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the court's majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberal justices.

Federal laws setting a single election day "leave open when those votes must be received," Barrett wrote.

The U.S. Congress could change the law, she said. "If varied deadlines for ballot receipt similarly call for a national solution, the American people must choose it through their elected representatives," Barrett wrote.

Trump's complaints of 'rigged' L.A. Mayoral vote could offer preview of midterm election night

Fears mount that Trump administration could meddle in U.S. Elections

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissent for four justices.

"Not only is today's decision inconsistent with statutory text, legal context, historical practice, and precedent; it also threatens to produce lamentable consequences," Alito wrote. "The majority's holding spawns a slurry of troubling election-law questions and risks further undermining Americans' confidence in election integrity."

Democrats have accused Trump of pursuing measures that would make it harder for people to vote, especially groups that tend to favour Democratic candidates.

Trump called the court ruling a "tremendous loss" and renewed his call for Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which has made it through the House of Representatives but not the Senate.

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

Among other changes, the legislation would limit who is able to receive a mail ballot and impose a documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement for registering to vote.

"If we want fair and secure elections, Election Day should mean exactly what it says, which is why this decision makes it even more imperative that Congress pass the SAVE America Act," Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters said in a statement.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer welcomed Monday's ruling.

"As the midterm elections approach, Trump and his allies are working overtime to silence Americans' votes. Senate Democrats will continue to do everything we can to protect free and fair elections, where everyone's voice is heard," Schumer said.

Rebekah Caruthers, president and CEO ‌of the Fair Elections Center voting rights group, said the ruling "affirms a basic principle: voters who follow the rules and mail their ballots on time should not lose their voice due to delays beyond their control."

"By upholding postmark rules, the court protects millions who rely on mail voting — in particular senior citizens, rural voters, people with disabilities and military and overseas voters," Caruthers said.

The court heard arguments in March in a case from Mississippi pitting the state against Trump's Republican administration and the Republican and Libertarian parties. At issue was whether federal law sets a single election day that requires ballots to be both cast by voters and received by state officials.

The federal appeals court in New Orleans struck down a Mississippi law allowing ballots to be counted if they arrive within five business days of the election and are postmarked by election day.

The outcome is a "sigh of relief" for a lot of election administrators, said Stephen Richer, a Republican and the former top election administrator in Arizona's Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix.

A ruling in favour of the Republican National Committee "would have created a whole host of administrative challenges for the affected states," said Richer, who is now a legal fellow at the Cato Institute.

---

---