States Can Count Mail Ballots That Arrive After Election Day, the Supreme Court Rules — and Justice Alito Warns It Invites Fraud.

On Monday, June 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, 5–4, that states may count mail ballots that arrive after Election Day so long as voters cast and postmarked them by Election Day. The decision, in Watson v. Republican National Committee, No. 24-1260, upheld a Mississippi law that counts absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day and received within five business days, and rejected the argument — pressed by the RNC, the Mississippi GOP, and the Trump administration — that federal law forces every ballot to be in hand by the close of Election Day.

Justice Amy Coney Barrettwrote the majority opinion. She was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s three Democratic appointees — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch in full and by Justice Brett Kavanaugh in part. The four dissenters would have struck the grace period down.

This page lays out exactly what the Court held, who lined up where, the precise language of Alito’s fraud warning, and what the ruling means for the roughly 30 states that count some late-arriving ballots heading into the 2026 midterms. We are scrupulous here about the holding: the Court did notbless ballots cast after Election Day, and it did not rule on whether such grace periods are wise — only on whether federal law forbids them.

• 5–4 — the vote in Watson v. Republican National Committee, No. 24-1260, decided June 29, 2026 · Source: Supreme Court slip opinion; SCOTUSblog
• Barrett wrote it — Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson · Source: Supreme Court opinion
• Alito dissented — joined in full by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, and by Justice Kavanaugh except as to Parts II–C–2 and III · Source: Supreme Court opinion; Ballotpedia
• Postmark + 5 days — the Mississippi law counts absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day and received within five business days afterward · Source: SCOTUSblog; CBS News
• ~30 states affected — the opinion notes Mississippi is one of roughly 30 states that count at least some absentee ballots received after Election Day; about 14 states plus D.C. use a postmark-based grace period like Mississippi's · Source: Supreme Court opinion; CBS News
• 'Tremendous loss' — President Trump called the ruling a defeat and renewed his push for the SAVE Act; the RNC said it 'invites chaos' · Source: Fox News; CNBC

The dispute turned on a clash between a state grace period and the federal statutes that fix Election Day as the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Mississippi counts absentee ballots that are postmarked by Election Day and received within five business days. The RNC, the Mississippi Republican Party, and the Libertarian Party argued that those federal Election Day statutes set a single, hard receipt deadline — that every lawful ballot must be in the hands of election officials when the polls close. The 5th Circuit agreed with them, holding that federal law preempts the state grace period.

The Supreme Court reversed. Writing for the majority, Justice Barrett drew a line between the act of voting and the receipt of ballots. Federal law, she wrote, fixes “the day when the electorate must make its choice” — but it says nothing about when ballots have to be physically received and counted. So long as voters complete their ballots by Election Day, the federal statutes are satisfied. “The electorate’s choice,” Barrett wrote, “is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received.”

“The election-day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt, and we cannot add to the words Congress chose.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, majority opinion, Watson v. RNC

Keep Reading

Politics · Federal Reserve

The Supreme Court Spared Lisa Cook 5–4 — and Left the Mortgage-Fraud Case Hanging Over Her

Read →

The vote did not break along the familiar conservative-liberal line. Two of the Court’s Republican-appointed justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee — joined the three Democratic appointees, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, to form the five-justice majority. That is the unusual coalition behind the holding.

On the other side, Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissent. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined it in full. Justice Brett Kavanaughjoined all of it except Parts II–C–2 and III — a partial join that signals he agreed with the bulk of Alito’s statutory reasoning while declining to sign onto its furthest-reaching sections. All four would have upheld the 5th Circuit and struck the Mississippi grace period down.

Justice Alito’s dissent was blunt. He argued the majority’s reading collides with the statutory text, with the historical meaning of a single Election Day, and with the Court’s own precedent. If ballots received after Election Day are added to the pile that decides the outcome, he wrote, then “the electorate’s choice does not occur on election day, and the federal election-day statutes are violated.”

But the line drawing the most attention was his warning about the practical fallout. Allowing absentee ballots to “pour in over the days and weeks after election day,” Alito wrote — by which point preliminary returns are already public — “creates greater opportunity for fraud and risks further undermining the public’s confidence in election integrity.” The decision, he added, “spawns a slurry of troubling election-law questions.”

“Allowing absentee ballots to pour in over the days and weeks after election day... creates greater opportunity for fraud and risks further undermining the public's confidence in election integrity.”

Justice Samuel Alito, dissenting, Watson v. RNC

Keep Reading

Politics · Health Policy

25 Democratic States Sue the Trump Administration Over Who Counts as 'Frail'

Read →

It is worth being precise about what the dissent is and is not. Alito did not document a specific instance of fraud in Mississippi’s grace period; his argument is that a longer receipt window enlarges the opportunityfor it and erodes confidence when counts shift after election night. The majority, for its part, did not dispute that Congress could impose a hard receipt deadline if it chose — only that the existing statutes do not. That distinction is the whole case: this was a fight over what federal law currently says, not over what election policy should be.

The immediate effect is that grace-period laws survive intact for this November. The Court’s opinion notes that Mississippi is one of roughly 30 states that count at least some absentee ballots received after Election Day; by the count of several outlets, about 14 states plus the District of Columbiause a postmark-based grace period like Mississippi’s — among them California, New York, and Texas. A ruling the other way would have forced those states to move up their receipt deadlines on short notice before the 2026 cycle.

Politically, the decision is a defeat for President Trump and the RNC, which had backed the challenge as part of a broader push to tighten mail-voting rules. Trump called it a “tremendous loss” and renewed his demand that Congress pass the SAVE Act, the stalled bill that would require proof of citizenship and photo ID to register and vote. RNC Chairman Joe Gruters said Democrats were “inviting chaos at the ballot box.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) praised the ruling, saying the justices “upheld this bedrock American principle: if you cast your ballot on time, your vote will count.”

By a single vote, with two Republican appointees crossing over, the Supreme Court held that federal law sets the day Americans must vote — not the day their ballots must be received. Mississippi’s postmark-and-five-days rule, and grace periods in dozens of other states, survive for the 2026 midterms. Justice Alito’s dissent did not point to proven fraud, but it framed the stakes the site’s readers care about: a longer counting window, returns that can shift after election night, and the public confidence that hangs on both. The Court closed one door and pointed at another — if there is to be a hard ballot-receipt deadline, the majority said, Congress must write it. That fight, over the SAVE Act, is now squarely back in the Capitol. We will update this page as the opinion is parsed and as Congress responds.

More From Civic Intelligence

Politics · Redistricting

Colorado's Own Court Just Killed the Democrats' 7-to-1 Gerrymander — Before Voters Ever Saw It

On June 29, 2026, the Colorado Supreme Court unanimously tossed all three Democratic-backed ballot…

Politics · Congress

Mike Johnson Bolts the SAVE Act onto the Defense Bill — and the Wall Is Still the Senate

On June 29, 2026, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) unveiled a procedural 'MIRV' merge to attach the…

Last updated June 30, 2026