Mississippi can still count mail ballots that arrive five days late, with Barrett writing and Alito dissenting

The single most litigated rule in American voting since 2020 has been whether a mail ballot posted on time but delivered late may be counted. On 29 June 2026 the Supreme Court answered, in Watson v. Republican National Committee, No. 24-1260, and the answer was yes.

The Court reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, reported at 120 F.4th 200, and held that the federal election day statutes, 3 U.S.C. section 1 and 2 U.S.C. sections 1 and 7, do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day and received afterwards. Mississippi's law, adopted in 2020 and codified at Miss. Code Ann. sections 23-15-637(1)(a) and (3), allows a five business day window. The vote was 5 to 4.

The line up is the part most worth getting right, because it was reported inconsistently. The syllabus published by the Cornell Legal Information Institute records Justice Amy Coney Barrett writing the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, and by Justice Brett Kavanaugh except as to Parts II-C-2 and III. That is a four justice dissent, three of them joining in full.

Barrett's reasoning is narrow. The federal statutes fix when voters must vote, she wrote, not when officials must have the paper in hand: the election day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward. Federal law dictates when ballots must be cast, state law dictates when they must be received. She rejected the argument that nineteenth century election practice controls the question, on the ground that it would call into question the way modern elections work, and observed that the statutes set no deadline for counting ballots or certifying results either, so late changes in the reported result are possible whatever the receipt rule.

Alito's dissent argued that the electorate's collective choice must still be authoritatively expressed on election day, which he read as requiring the collection of ballots to be complete by then. He also treated a receipt deadline as a practical safeguard, describing it as an additional hurdle for bad actors seeking to stuff ballot boxes when early returns suggest a tight race.

The case did not begin with Mississippi. In January 2024 the Republican National Committee and the Mississippi Republican Party sued the secretary of state and Harrison County election officials to stop late arriving ballots being counted, and the Libertarian Party of Mississippi filed a companion case in February. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted summary judgment to the election officials in July 2024. In October 2024 a Fifth Circuit panel of Judges James Ho, Stuart Kyle Duncan and Andrew Oldham reversed, holding that federal law requires ballots for federal office to be both cast and received by election day. Rehearing en banc was denied in March 2025 over the dissent of five judges. Mississippi's secretary of state petitioned for certiorari in June 2025, and the Court granted it on 10 November 2025. Argument was heard on 23 March 2026 and the judgment issued on 31 July 2026.

How many states this affects is reported differently depending on where you look, and the difference matters for how big the ruling is. The syllabus states that roughly 30 states count at least some absentee ballots mailed by election day but received afterwards. Amy Howe, reporting the cert grant for SCOTUSblog on 10 November 2025, put it at about 30 states plus the District of Columbia. Her own preview on 18 March 2026, immediately before argument, described the rule as existing in more than a dozen states. The syllabus figure is the one that carries the Court's authority.

The arguments turned on what an election is. Mississippi said an election happens when voters cast ballots, and that the 1845 federal statute setting a uniform election day was aimed at multiple voting days and double voting, not at delivery times. The challengers relied on Foster v. Love, decided in 1997, in which the Court said a federal election must produce a final selection, and argued that receipt is part of the election.

The reaction was not along the usual lines. Donald Trump called the decision a tremendous loss. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said it upheld the principle that a ballot cast on time will count. Conservative commentators attacked Justice Barrett for joining the four Democratic appointees.

What is not settled is whether Congress could impose a receipt deadline by statute. Barrett's opinion construes the statutes Congress wrote. It does not say what Congress may write next.