The United States Supreme Court has ruled that federal election law does not preempt state provisions allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive within a set grace period. The 5-4 decision, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s three liberal justices, specifically upholds a Mississippi statute that permits counting ballots received up to five business days after an election. The ruling leaves intact comparable laws in roughly 30 states and the District of Columbia, including California’s seven-day post-election receipt window.

Viewed from within the Republican Party and conservative commentary circles, the decision was met with immediate condemnation. Republican Senator Eric Schmitt described it as “a shockingly wrong opinion,” while other figures labelled Justice Barrett a “disaster” and accused her of “judicial activism disguised as selective originalism.” President Donald Trump, posting on his social media platform, called the outcome a “tremendous loss” and asserted it made passage of the SAVE Act — a bill requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration and sharply restricting postal ballots — “more important than ever.” The Trump administration had formally supported the challenge, arguing that federal statutes establish Election Day as the deadline for both casting and receiving ballots.

By contrast, California officials and voting-rights advocates welcomed the ruling as a safeguard for voter participation. Governor Gavin Newsom’s office described it as “a win for voters, plain and simple,” while Secretary of State Shirley Weber framed it as a victory “for the rule of law, and for the future of our democracy.” Los Angeles County’s registrar-recorder noted the decision affirms that ballots cast by Election Day will be counted if received within the legal timeframe. These officials also acknowledged that slow vote tabulation in recent elections has generated public frustration, and they pointed to separate state-level investments — including $29 million in new election infrastructure — to accelerate counting without curtailing access.

Election law experts in the United States note that the practical effect on the speed of results is likely to be limited. Late-arriving mail ballots represented only about 2.5 per cent of California’s total in 2024, and analysts attribute protracted counts primarily to the large volume of mail ballots submitted on or just before Election Day, which require signature verification. The court’s majority opinion held that the relevant federal statutes set a deadline for voters to make their choice, not for election officials to receive the ballot. The four dissenting justices — Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — argued that the ruling risks “further undermining Americans’ confidence in election integrity.”

The SAVE Act, which President Trump has repeatedly invoked, remains stalled in the Senate. It lacks the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster, with all Democrats and several Republicans — including Senators Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins and Mitch McConnell — opposing the measure. The White House has not indicated any new legislative strategy, and the ruling itself does not alter the statutory framework governing voter registration. The next major electoral test of these state-level ballot receipt laws will be the November midterm elections, where the grace periods are expected to remain in force across the majority of states that have adopted them.