Supreme Court Rules Against Republicans’ Attempt to Restrict Vote by Mail

WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 12: U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett participates in the Supreme Court Fellows Program Annual Lecture in the Coolidge Auditorium at the Library of Congress on March 12, 20... WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 12: U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett participates in the Supreme Court Fellows Program Annual Lecture in the Coolidge Auditorium at the Library of Congress on March 12, 2026 in Washington, DC. Hosted by the Law Library of Congress and the Supreme Court Fellows Program, the question-and-answer program with Barrett lasted an hour during which she spoke about her personal journey to the Supreme Court and her perspectives on a variety of topics, including academics, traditions and the law. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) MORE LESS

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected, 5-4, Republicans’ attempt to limit which mail ballots can be counted, an effort which would have unleashed chaos and disenfranchised voters for the 2026 midterms and beyond. 

The Republican National Committee had sued Mississippi, one of many states that accepts ballots mailed by Election Day but received by election administrators after that date. 

“The federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days thereafter; nothing in the federal election-day statutes requires ballots to be received by election day,” wrote Justice Amy Coney Barrett for the majority. 

Barrett was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberals. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissent, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas in full, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh in part. 

This is a breaking news story and will be updated.

9
Show Comments

Notable Replies

  1. I’m shocked, I fully expected them to tank vote by mail. I mean I’m happy, but still shocked.

  2. Alito must have shit his robes when he saw how this was going down.

  3. ACB, who from a purely actuarial standpoint likely has a long SCOTUS career ahead of her, continues to be an interesting one to watch.

  4. The usual pattern is this: “oh, doesn’t seem so bad! Oh, this is okay!” and then, “oh, they saved the worst for last.”

    ETA: there’s one!

  5. The big one is birthright citizenship. Still to come.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

3 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for percysowner Avatar for sonsofares Avatar for commanderogg Avatar for tiowally Avatar for canyoncountry Avatar for brian512 Avatar for JGarceau

Continue Discussion