The Supreme Court on Monday weighed whether states must count only mail ballots that reach election officials by Election Day or whether states may include some late-arriving ballots under their own rules. The challenge, arising from Mississippi, asks whether federal law establishes a single Election Day deadline that requires ballots to be both cast by voters and received by state officials.
The dispute fits into a broader push by President Donald Trump to narrow how long election officials can accept mailed ballots. The case has also been framed against Trump’s assertions that his 2020 loss to Joe Biden stemmed from fraud, a claim the Supreme Court was not asked to decide directly in Monday’s hearing but one that has informed how the Trump administration and its allies have approached mail voting. The Associated Press reported that Trump has said the losses resulted from fraud even though more than 60 court decisions and Trump’s own attorney general said the argument had no merit.
Conservative justices on the court signaled skepticism about state laws that allow ballot counting after Election Day. Justice Samuel Alito questioned scenarios where late-arriving ballots could alter election results, asking about the appearance of fraud when “a big stash of ballots” that arrive late “radically flipped” an election.
Mississippi’s position was defended by Solicitor General Scott Stewart, who told the justices that the Trump administration and its allies in the case had not yet submitted a case of fraud tied to late-arriving mail ballots. Stewart’s argument focused on the absence of documented late-ballot fraud in the challengers’ filings, contrasting the court’s skepticism about the risks of counting ballots that arrive after Election Day.
The court’s liberals indicated they were more inclined to uphold states’ post-Election Day deadlines. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in court that “The people who should decide this issue are not the courts, but Congress, the states and Congress.” Several liberal-leaning questions reflected concerns about the practical impact of a ruling that would force states to change their election procedures shortly before the next federal election cycle.
In written filings, state and big-city election officials warned that forcing changes only a few months before the 2026 midterms could lead to “confusion and disenfranchisement,” particularly in places that have long operated with relaxed deadlines for some ballots. The Associated Press noted that California, Texas, New York and Illinois are among the states with post-Election Day deadlines, and that Alaska also counts late-arriving ballots because of the challenges posed by distance and unpredictable weather.
Asked about operational planning, Alaska elections officials said Monday they were preparing for the fall elections under existing law. “If a ruling requires operational changes, we will work through those in coordination with the appropriate state entities to ensure compliance and to provide clear information to voters,” the Alaska Division of Elections said in a statement.
The Trump administration and lawyers for the Republican and Libertarian parties urged the justices to affirm a lower-court ruling that struck down Mississippi’s grace period. The Mississippi law at issue, according to the Associated Press account, allowed ballots to be counted if they arrive within five business days of the election and are postmarked by Election Day.
Paul Clement, representing the political parties and the request to bar counting late-arriving ballots, sought to raise concerns about fraud risk by pointing to Chicago. He told the court that voting ends at 8 p.m. in Chicago but that, under state law, ballots postmarked by Election Day can still be received later. Clement, however, said in court that he was not claiming there could be fraud in Chicago, adding “I am not here to say there could ever be voting fraud in Chicago,” a line that drew laughter in the courtroom.
While arguments touched on election fraud allegations, the justices appeared more preoccupied with how a sweeping ruling could ripple across election administration. Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested that ballots could be received until the start of the next Congress—two months after the election—if the legal logic of the challenge is extended.
Justice Elena Kagan raised a related concern, saying that the challenge’s reasoning to limit late-arriving mail ballots could also be used to rule out other practices such as early voting and absentee ballots. Chief Justice John Roberts also appeared troubled by the consequences of limiting post-Election Day acceptance, and the Associated Press reported that Roberts seemed the conservative member of the court most likely to side with Mississippi, along with Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
The justices also discussed whether state rules that allow late-arriving ballots from military and overseas voters could survive the legal approach urged by the challengers. The dispute has come alongside other election-related efforts in recent months, including a Trump executive order last year aiming to require votes to be “cast and received” by Election Day, which has been blocked in pending court challenges, and Associated Press reporting that four Republican-dominated states—Ohio, Kansas, North Dakota and Utah—eliminated grace periods last year.
At the same time, the lower court ruling at the center of the Supreme Court case was described as part of a broader legal conflict over whether federal law preempts states’ election deadlines. Judge Andrew Oldham of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Associated Press said, wrote that Mississippi’s grace period violated federal law, in a unanimous ruling joined by James Ho and Stuart Kyle Duncan, all appointed by Trump during his first term.