October Term 2025 · Docket 24-1260
Can Mississippi count mail ballots received after Election Day?
The case asks what federal Election Day law requires when a timely mailed ballot arrives later.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the March 23 argument
Mississippi said Election Day is the deadline for a voter’s final choice, not for delivery. Its lawyer argued that states retain authority over receipt and counting procedures.
The challengers said the election must end with ballots in official custody on Election Day. Their lawyer argued that later receipt extends the federal election beyond the date Congress chose.
The justices pressed both sides on the text and history. They tested postmarks, unattended drop boxes, early voting, and older examples of ballots counted after election day.
Neither side’s answers amount to a Supreme Court holding. The case remains pending until the Court issues an official decision.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 1, lines 1-9 — Transcript, file page 1, lines 1-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 17-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 106, lines 41-21 — Transcript, file page 106, lines 41-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 110, lines 55-1 — Transcript, file page 110, lines 55-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 123, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 123, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 126, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 126, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 142, lines 41-7 — Transcript, file page 142, lines 41-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 145, lines 37-7 — Transcript, file page 145, lines 37-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 15-27 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 15-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 7-23 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 7-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 13-23 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 13-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 38, lines 13-35 — Transcript, file page 38, lines 13-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 43-39 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 43-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 43, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 55-7 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 55-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 45-43 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 45-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 49-17 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 49-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 77, lines 13-17 — Transcript, file page 77, lines 13-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 82, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 82, lines 27-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 85, lines 13-21 — Transcript, file page 85, lines 13-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 97, lines 29-47 — Transcript, file page 97, lines 29-47
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Mississippi counts some mail ballots that arrive after Election Day. Federal law sets one Election Day. The dispute is whether that law also sets a ballot-receipt deadline.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 145, lines 37-7 — Transcript, file page 145, lines 37-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 43-39 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 43-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 55-7 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 55-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 45-43 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 45-43
How the case got here
Mississippi officials asked the Supreme Court to reverse the judgment below. The Court heard argument on March 23, 2026.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 1, lines 1-9 — Transcript, file page 1, lines 1-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 145, lines 37-7 — Transcript, file page 145, lines 37-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-17
What each side wants
Mississippi officials want the Court to preserve the state rule. They say a ballot may arrive later if the voter made a final choice by Election Day.
The RNC and other challengers want a receipt deadline. They say election officials must have the ballot by Election Day.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 145, lines 37-7 — Transcript, file page 145, lines 37-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 43-39 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 43-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 55-7 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 55-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 45-43 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 45-43
What each side says
Mississippi argues that federal law fixes the day voters must choose. It says states still control how and when officials receive and count ballots.
The challengers argue that a federal election must finish on Election Day. They say a ballot is not cast until an election official receives it.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 145, lines 37-7 — Transcript, file page 145, lines 37-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 43-39 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 43-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 55-7 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 55-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 45-43 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 45-43
What the justices asked
The justices tested what it means for an election to occur on one day. They asked whether the law governs a voter’s choice, official receipt, or both.
They also asked about drop boxes, postmarks, early voting, and historical examples. Those questions explored each rule’s practical limits; they did not reveal votes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 106, lines 41-21 — Transcript, file page 106, lines 41-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 110, lines 55-1 — Transcript, file page 110, lines 55-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 123, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 123, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 49-17 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 49-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 77, lines 13-17 — Transcript, file page 77, lines 13-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 82, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 82, lines 27-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 97, lines 29-47 — Transcript, file page 97, lines 29-47
Why it matters
The answer could change when states must stop accepting mail ballots in federal elections. It will also define how much room federal Election Day law leaves for state procedures.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 145, lines 37-7 — Transcript, file page 145, lines 37-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 43-39 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 43-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 55-7 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 55-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 45-43 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 45-43
What the Court decided
The federal election-day statutes mean the day voters cast their ballots, not the day ballots must be received. Mississippi may therefore count absentee ballots mailed by election day but received up to five days later.
The Fifth Circuit's judgment was reversed and remanded.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 1, lines 1-1 — Opinion, file page 1, lines 1-1
- Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 4, lines 1-1 — Opinion, file page 4, lines 1-1
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 145, lines 37-7 — Transcript, file page 145, lines 37-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 43-39 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 43-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 55-7 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 55-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 45-43 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 45-43
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Replaced an overlong model draft with a concise, claim-grounded editorial revision.
- Revision 3 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Removed an unsupported statement that the Court had not ruled; the available source set did not establish that absence.
- Revision 4 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Corrected unsupported no-ruling language and clarified that the article's disposition summary is incomplete.
- Revision 5 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Added the holding and disposition from the verified official Court opinion.
- Revision 6 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.