By Tierney Sneed, John Fritze, Devan Cole, CNN
(CNN) — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared dubious of state laws that allow the counting of mail ballots that arrive at election offices after Election Day as justices heard oral arguments in a challenge to Mississippi’s five-day grace period for mail ballots.
Over the course of more than two hours, justices raised an assortment of reasons why they saw those policies as problematic, seemingly embracing Republicans’ arguments that the state laws run afoul of statutes passed by Congress establishing Election Day in November for federal offices.
The lawsuit against Mississippi’s practice was brought by the Republican National Committee in 2024 and puts into jeopardy the mail ballot deadlines of several other states. Thirteen other states and the District of Columbia also set mail ballot receipt deadlines after Election Day, and 29 states, plus DC, count ballots that arrive after Election Day that are cast by military families and citizens living overseas in certain circumstances, according to the National Conference of State Legislature.
The Trump administration is supporting the RNC in the case, but it argues those overseas ballots can be carved out of a ruling against Mississippi.
It’s not clear how a ruling striking down Mississippi’s law would play out in November’s election. The risk that such a ruling could cause confusion during the midterms was only touched on briefly during the hearing.
The case is one example of how Trump and his allies have continued to try to curb mail voting, which was a frequent target of his false claims that the 2020 election was rigged against him. A ruling is likely to come by the end of June.
Here’s what to know from Monday’s arguments:
Conservative majority appears dubious of mail ballot grace periods
The six GOP appointees who make up the court’s majority put forward a host of reasons they were concerned about laws like Mississippi’s.
Several, including Justice Amy Coney Barrett, often seen as a possible swing voter – latched on to a line of questioning put forward by Justice Clarence Thomas – implying that permitting Mississippi’s law would also allow a voter have his ballot counted if he simply handed his ballots to his neighbor by Election Day.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, another sometimes-swing vote on the court, also leaned into the arguments against grace periods for mail ballots. He raised the possibility that those regulations erode confidence in elections if late-arriving ballots determine the outcome and pointed to the fact that the practice expanded greatly during the Covid-19 pandemic, suggesting that undermined the idea that it has a long-established history.
When Paul Clement, the lawyer from the RNC, was up, he fielded mostly softballs from the conservatives. Justice Samuel Alito gave Clement the opportunity to respond to a Maryland law, cited by Mississippi’s defenders, that allowed for post-Election Day receipt in the early 1900s.
Barrett had some tough questions for Clement and US Solicitor General D. John Sauer. However, it wasn’t clear whether her sharp queries signaled she was inclined to uphold the Mississippi law or if she was grappling with how to write an opinion in the RNC’s favor that dealt with those historical complications.
Justices worry about impact on early voting
When the majority of the court begins drafting its opinion, it’s clear that another popular election practice will be firmly on the justices’ minds: E