The Supreme Court handed Trump an election case defeat. Is a bigger win for him coming?
Supreme Court’s Decision on Mail Ballots Marks a Loss for Trump, but Larger Gains Remain Possible?
The Supreme Court handed Trump an election – The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling allowing over a dozen states to retain extended grace periods for mail ballots has dealt a setback to President Donald Trump and his Republican allies as the midterm elections approach. While the decision upheld Mississippi’s five-day post-election window for counting mail ballots, it was met with criticism from legal experts who argue it undermines efforts to ensure voting access. However, the GOP’s loss in this case may not signal the end of their strategy to reshape election laws in their favor, as another pending case could soon tip the scales in their direction.
The Ruling and Its Implications
On Monday, the court’s decision saw two Republican-appointed justices align with three liberal justices to dismiss Republican arguments that federal law prohibited states from counting mail ballots postmarked after Election Day. This unanimous ruling reinforced Mississippi’s five-day grace period, which had been previously invalidated by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision clarified that Congress did not intend to impose strict deadlines on ballot receipt when it established the federal Election Day standard in November.
“This ruling favored states’ rights in a way that benefited voters,” said Richard Hasen, an election law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Mi Familia favors states’ rights against the interests of voters,” Hasen told CNN.
The ruling also highlighted a strategic shift in the court’s approach to election law. While the mail ballot case focused on administrative rules, the justices are poised to tackle more contentious issues in the next term. One such case, RNC v. Mi Familia Vota, could grant states the authority to conduct mass voter purges of suspected noncitizens in the days and weeks before an election. This legal maneuver, though less publicized, has the potential to significantly impact voter turnout and eligibility, particularly in regions with large minority populations.
The Broader Context of Trump’s Election Strategy
Trump’s push to tighten voting regulations has been a consistent theme since his first term. Last year, he attempted to unilaterally penalize states for counting mail ballots received after Election Day, framing the issue as a threat to election integrity. The Supreme Court’s current decision, while a partial win for states, contrasts with his broader agenda to limit ballot access. Legal scholars warn that the tactics used to target noncitizen voters — though rarely documented — risk disenfranchising eligible voters, especially in communities of color.
The Arizona case, which centers on the National Voter Registration Act, presents a different challenge. Unlike the mail ballot ruling, which focused on deadlines, the Arizona law requires voters to provide proof of citizenship. This could lead to stricter verification processes and, in some cases, the removal of eligible voters from registration rolls. Justin Levitt, a Loyola Law School professor and former White House advisor on voting during the Biden administration, noted that the legal interpretation of the NVRA is less clear than the federal statutes in the mail ballot case. “I don’t think (Monday’s ruling) is a harbinger of what the court is going to do on the NVRA,” he said, emphasizing that the Arizona case may result in a different outcome.
Trump’s Victory Over the Voting Rights Act
Despite the mail ballot setback, Trump and his allies have secured a major legislative win earlier this spring. The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision to dismantle key provisions of the Voting Rights Act has made it far more difficult for minority voters to challenge redistricting plans under the VRA’s protections against racial discrimination. This ruling, led by Justice Samuel Alito, has been leveraged by Republicans to eliminate Democratic-held congressional seats in Southern states that relied on the VRA’s enforcement mechanisms.
The decision marks the third major shift in narrowing the Voting Rights Act. In recent years, the conservative majority has also restricted federal courts’ ability to address partisan gerrymandering, compounding challenges for voters of color. With states now able to redraw electoral maps without federal oversight, the long-term impact on minority representation could be profound. As the 2028 elections approach, redistricting efforts are expected to further dilute the voting power of marginalized communities, both at the federal and local levels.
“There are all these cases where the court seems to want to be out of the business of dealing with election issues,” said Derek Muller, an election law professor at Notre Dame Law School. The court’s recent opinion in the mail ballot case, authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, stressed that the decision was narrowly focused on statutory interpretation rather than constitutional concerns. This approach may signal a broader pattern of deferring to states in election law matters, even as federal oversight is eroded.
While the mail ballot ruling was a temporary loss, the Arizona case and the broader trend of judicial deference to state authority suggest that Trump’s strategy to reshape election rules is far from over. Legal analysts note that the court’s recent decisions have been framed as reducing federal interference, but they have also created new barriers for voters. The balance between state autonomy and equitable access to the ballot continues to be tested, with implications for the 2028 elections and beyond.
Key Takeaways and Future Outlook
Monday’s decision underscored the court’s preference for giving states more control over voting procedures, even as it validated certain flexibility in ballot processing. However, the Arizona case remains a critical battleground for expanding voter restrictions. Legal experts warn that if the court sides with the GOP on this issue, it could embolden states to implement more aggressive measures to suppress voter turnout. These actions, while justified as safeguards against fraud, may disproportionately affect communities with historically lower registration rates.
Meanwhile, the erosion of the Voting Rights Act continues to reshape the political landscape. Southern states, which previously benefited from federal protections, are now free to redraw districts in ways that could advantage their majority populations. This has raised concerns among civil rights advocates, who fear that decades of progress in minority representation could be undone in a single election cycle. The Supreme Court’s willingness to interpret laws narrowly in favor of states may further limit the ability of voters to challenge electoral policies that favor one group over another.
As the midterms loom, the