Roughly a third of American states count mail ballots that arrive after Election Day, provided they were postmarked on time. President Trump called this practice “absurd.” Three federal judges have now called his attempt to stop it unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court just signaled the fight is far from over.
On January 9, U.S. District Judge John Chun issued a 75-page ruling permanently blocking the Trump administration from enforcing Executive Order 14248 against Washington and Oregon. The Biden appointee found that the Constitution “assigns no authority to the President over federal election administration.” Five days later, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Bost v. Illinois that political candidates have standing to challenge the very mail ballot rules Chun just protected.
Eighteen states plus the District of Columbia accept post-Election Day ballots if postmarked on time. Oregon and Washington run elections entirely by mail. During the 2024 general election, Washington officials counted nearly 120,000 ballots received after Election Day but postmarked by it. Oregon counted roughly 13,500. Under Trump’s executive order, every one of those votes would have been discarded.
Executive Order 14248, signed March 25, 2025, targeted how Americans register and vote. It directed the Election Assistance Commission to require documentary proof of citizenship on national voter registration forms. It demanded all mail ballots be received by Election Day. It threatened to strip federal funding from non-compliant states. And it ordered the Attorney General to take enforcement action against states counting late-arriving ballots.
Three separate lawsuits challenged the order within days. In Washington, D.C., Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a Clinton appointee, granted a preliminary injunction on April 24 blocking the citizenship documentation requirements and made it permanent on October 31. In Massachusetts, Judge Denise Casper, an Obama appointee, issued an injunction June 13 blocking provisions targeting states with extended mail ballot deadlines. The DOJ appealed to the First Circuit on July 31. Then came Chun’s ruling—the most comprehensive rejection yet.
All three courts reached the same constitutional conclusion: the President lacks authority to regulate federal elections. That power belongs to Congress and the states under the Elections Clause. “The Constitution entrusts Congress and the States—not the President—with the authority to regulate federal elections,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote, a formulation the other courts adopted.
The White House has not accepted defeat. Spokeswoman Abigail Jackson stated that Trump “cares deeply about the integrity of our elections” and that the administration “expects ultimate victory.” Congress has provided a potential path forward. The House passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act on April 10 by a 220-208 vote, with four Democrats crossing over. The bill would require documentary proof of citizenship to register for federal elections. It faces the 60-vote threshold in the Senate, where it has 20 Republican co-sponsors and zero Democrats.
The Supreme Court’s Bost ruling may prove more consequential than any district court decision. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a 7-2 majority, held that candidates have a “concrete and particularized interest in the rules that govern the counting of votes in their elections, regardless whether those rules harm their electoral prospects.” The Republican National Committee called it “a key step toward ending this unlawful scheme.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissenting, warned the decision “opens the floodgates” to election litigation. The ruling did not address whether Illinois’s mail ballot grace period is legal—only that Representative Mike Bost has standing to sue. Another case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, will reach the Court this spring challenging Mississippi’s post-Election Day counting directly on the merits.
Chun’s ruling applies only to Washington and Oregon. The Massachusetts injunction remains on appeal. If the Supreme Court rules against grace periods in Watson, it could invalidate mail ballot rules in 18 states regardless of what district courts have said.
States defending current practices point to history dating to the Civil War, when soldiers could hand ballots to military officials on Election Day for later counting. They argue postal delays should not disenfranchise voters who mailed on time. The administration counters that Election Day means Election Day—for receiving ballots, not merely sending them.
The Constitution gives states authority over election procedures “subject only to the limitations by Congress.” Three district courts have ruled the President cannot impose those limitations unilaterally. The SAVE Act sits in the Senate. The Supreme Court docket is filling. November 2026 is ten months away.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 