The Supreme Court has issued a 5-4 decision upholding a Mississippi law that permits mail-in ballots to be counted even if they arrive after Election Day, provided they are postmarked by the deadline. The ruling, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, found that federal election law does not preempt states from allowing late-counted mail-in ballots. This decision has drawn significant criticism from conservative commentators and politicians.
Barrett's majority opinion stated that while Election Day marks the deadline for voters to cast their ballots, relevant federal laws do not specify a reception deadline for mail-in ballots to be considered valid. She was joined in the majority by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Conservative figures reacted swiftly on social media. Republican Senator Eric Schmitt described the ruling as "shockingly wrong" and "terrible for election integrity," arguing it allows for late mail-in ballots to be counted. He expressed support for the SAVE American Act as a means to address such issues.
Conservative author Hans Mahncke called Barrett "the biggest conservative judicial disaster since Souter," lamenting that she was expected to represent the future of conservative jurisprudence but is instead "pushing leftist policies." Political commentator Josh Hammer also expressed disappointment, stating Barrett "continues to disappoint in far too many high-profile cases."
Republican Representative Abe Hamadeh's office posted that the decision "guarantees we'll keep drifting away from" Election Day, leading to "endless mail-in ballots and never-ending counts." Retired U.S. Army captain Seth Keshel stated Barrett is "the worst choice ever among all GOP justices," including Roberts.
Constitutional attorney Krisanne Hall criticized Barrett's reasoning, suggesting she invoked historical precedent but "quietly sets it aside" when inconvenient, engaging in "judicial activism disguised as selective originalism."
Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, called the ruling "deeply disappointing," asserting that federal law requires all ballots to be received by Election Day. He stated the court missed an opportunity to reinforce election integrity, instead siding with "California-style chaos." Snead warned that allowing ballots to arrive after Election Day "does nothing but damage public trust in our system of government."
Hans von Spakovsky, a former Federal Election Commissioner, echoed this sentiment, calling the decision a "grave disappointment." He noted that Justice Samuel Alito's dissent, joined by three other justices, argued that Barrett's opinion is inconsistent with the "plain text of those laws and historical practice and precedents," and risks "further undermining Americans' confidence in election integrity."
Former President Donald Trump reacted on Truth Social, labeling the ruling a "tremendous loss." He reiterated his call for all voters to show photo ID and proof of citizenship, advocating for the elimination of mail-in ballots except for specific exceptions, and asserting that opposition to these measures is motivated by a desire to "CHEAT!" Trump urged the Senate to pass his proposed voter ID and citizenship verification legislation, the SAVE Act, which he stated the House has approved multiple times. He criticized unnamed Republican Senators for opposing the bill.
The Supreme Court's decision underscores existing divisions over election procedures and the role of mail-in voting in federal elections.