作者：蒂尔尼·斯内德、约翰·弗里茨、德文·科尔
更新时间：13分钟前
更新于2026年3月23日，美国东部时间下午3:52
发布于2026年3月23日，美国东部时间下午3:46
最高法院 最高法院大法官 国会新闻
[查看全部主题]
Facebook 推特[邮件]链接 话题链
链接已复制！
美国最高法院于2026年3月23日在华盛顿特区开庭。
埃文·沃西/路透社
在对密西西比州为期五天的邮寄选票宽限期提出的挑战案中，最高法院保守派多数派似乎对允许选举办公室在选举日后接收邮寄选票的州法律表示怀疑。
在超过两小时的庭审中，大法官们提出了种种理由，认为这些政策存在问题，似乎支持共和党人的观点，即州法律违反了国会制定的将联邦选举日定为11月第一个星期一之后的星期二的规定。
2024年由共和党全国委员会（RNC）提起的针对密西西比州做法的诉讼，可能危及其他几个州的邮寄选票截止日期。据州议会全国会议称，另有13个州和哥伦比亚特区也设定了选举日后的邮寄选票接收截止日期，29个州和哥伦比亚特区在特定情况下会计算军事家庭和海外公民在选举日后投递的选票。
特朗普政府在此案中支持共和党全国委员会，但辩称这些海外选票可以在对密西西比州的裁决中被排除在外。
目前尚不清楚推翻密西西比州法律的裁决在11月的选举中会如何影响结果。这种裁决可能在中期选举期间造成混乱的风险在听证会上仅被简要提及。
此案是特朗普及其盟友继续试图限制邮寄投票的一个例子，而邮寄投票曾是他声称2020年选举对他不利的频繁攻击目标。裁决可能在6月底前公布。
以下是周一辩论的要点：
保守派多数派对邮寄选票宽限期表示怀疑
由6名共和党任命的大法官组成的多数派提出了一系列理由，表明他们对类似密西西比州的法律持担忧态度。
包括常被视为摇摆票的艾米·科尼·巴雷特大法官在内的几位大法官，抓住了克拉伦斯·托马斯大法官提出的一系列问题，暗示允许密西西比州的法律可能会让选民只需在选举日前将选票交给邻居就能被计入。
另一位有时立场摇摆的大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺也倾向于反对邮寄选票宽限期的论点。他提出，这些规定如果导致迟到的选票决定选举结果，会侵蚀选民对选举的信心，并指出这种做法在新冠疫情期间大幅扩大，这削弱了其“历史悠久”的说法。
[相关实时报道 美国最高法院外飘雪 2026年3月12日，华盛顿特区在创纪录高温后于周四迎来降雪。布伦丹·斯迈洛斯基/法新社/盖蒂图片社 最高法院似乎对选举日后收到的邮寄选票持怀疑态度]
当共和党全国委员会的律师保罗·克莱门特发言时，他主要接受了保守派的“温和提问”。塞缪尔·阿利托大法官给了克莱门特回应密西西比州支持者引用的马里兰州法律的机会——该法律在20世纪初允许选举日后接收选票。
巴雷特对克莱门特和美国副检察长D.约翰·索尔提出了一些尖锐问题。但目前还不清楚她的尖锐询问是否表明她倾向于维持密西西比州的法律，或者她是否在努力撰写一份有利于共和党全国委员会的意见，同时处理这些历史复杂问题。
大法官们担忧对提前投票的影响
当最高法院多数派开始起草意见时，显然另一种受欢迎的选举做法将成为大法官们的核心考虑：提前投票。
提前投票在技术层面并不在争议范围内，但关于缺席选票在选举日之后到达的来回讨论，很大程度上涉及到如何定义“选举”。大法官们仔细审查了选举日必须发生的事情以及选举日之后或之前允许的事情。最高法院的裁决很可能引发对大多数州都提供的提前投票的未来挑战。
在整个辩论中保持相对沉默的首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨提出了几个问题，旨在了解对密西西比州案件中有利于共和党全国委员会的裁决可能如何影响提前投票。
“如果选举日是投票和计票日，那就必须是那一天，”罗伯茨说，补充道他认为索尔没有充分解释提前投票如何不会受到影响。“也许你只是说‘那不一样’。”
最高法院的多数派——无论是保守派还是自由派大法官——都询问了提前投票的问题。
[相关文章 一名选民在2024年3月5日北卡罗来纳州芒特霍利的投票站走过需要身份证的标志。克里斯·卡尔森/美联社/档案 越来越多州的共和党人推动特朗普的投票规则 7分钟阅读]
“你是说我们必须回到19世纪中期，然后问国会是否可能想到这种规则，”在这个问题上主持询问的自由派大法官埃琳娜·卡根说。“国会不可能想到我们现在实行的提前投票，也不可能想到现在管理选举的其他上千种方式。”
密西西比州的律师多次强调这一点：抛弃选举后收到的选票可能会危及选举官员几十年来在正式选举日后进行的其他工作。
索尔告诉大法官们，特朗普政府同意“提前投票仍然是可接受的”。但当被追问如何与他的诉讼理论保持一致时，索尔承认这是一个“具有挑战性的问题”。
一个较少引起关注的问题是此案可能如何影响海外军事选票。更多州允许这些选票在选举日后到达选举办公室，而密西西比州则援引联邦法律，该法律承认这些截止日期，同时让海外选民更容易投票。
尽管如此，周一克莱门特和索尔都表示，法院可能会在对密西西比州不利的裁决中保留对海外选民的宽限期。
“召回”选票成为保守派关注的核心
关于选民在将选票投入邮箱后能否“召回”选票的技术争议在辩论中变得异常重要——这可能成为法院决定此案的关键。
美国邮政服务允许人们在某些情况下在邮件送达前召回已寄出的邮件。
包括巴雷特大法官和尼尔·戈萨奇大法官在内的几位保守派大法官，对密西西比州的律师紧追不舍。这个问题很重要，因为该州辩称，一旦选民填写并寄出选票，候选人的选择就已经确定。
[相关文章 密西西比州杰克逊市的加布里埃尔·奥利弗，基督勇士成员，在2019年1月26日周六于亨廷顿伍兹公共图书馆外抗议“变装皇后故事时间”时引用圣经经文。01262019 Dragqueenstory 1 Junfu Han/底特律自由报/Imagn 最高法院恢复街头传教士对音乐会观众的诽谤诉讼，称其为‘妓女’、‘耶洗别’和‘娘娘腔’ 3分钟阅读]
但持怀疑态度的保守派问道，如果选民可以在选票到达选举办公室之前召回邮件，那么选票如何能被视为最终有效？戈萨奇提出了一个假设场景：一名候选人在竞选最后几天陷入性丑闻，大量选民试图召回他们的邮寄选票，足以改变选举结果。
“我认为这并不牵强，”戈萨奇说。“在这个假设中，选举日是否仍然是选举日？”
密西西比州副检察长斯科特·斯图尔特辩称，该州不允许选民召回已邮寄的选票，但在戈萨奇和巴雷特关于实际操作如何（或不如何）运作的追问下，他的辩护显得苍白无力。目前尚不清楚有多少选民会试图阻止他们已经寄出的邮寄选票，但可能是少数情况。
尽管如此，巴雷特反复回到“终局性”的问题上，即这是否削弱了密西西比州对“选举何时发生”的定义。
“我想了解你的‘终局性’定义是什么，”巴雷特在一次交流中问道，这让斯图尔特停顿了很久。“这关乎你对‘选举’的定义，关乎你对‘投票’的定义。”
自由派大法官试图强调对州的尊重
自由派大法官提出的将此案视为对州的尊重的诉求似乎未被采纳，尽管这通常是保守派，尤其是在选举领域的核心立场。
凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊大法官表示，问题在于“谁来决定”邮寄选票截止日期引发的政策问题，例如如何处理召回选票或选举日后到达的选票是否需要邮戳。
宪法一般将选举管理留给各州，但也规定国会可以制定自己的规则。在本案中，国会通过法律将联邦选举日标准化为11月第一个星期一之后的星期二。
“我认为问题在于，国会是否排除了各州做出这些决定、划定这些界限的权力，而你的立场，据我理解，是没有排除，”杰克逊说，“因为联邦法规中对选举日的定义很笼统，实际上这对你有利，因为它表明国会将这些不同的界限问题留给了各州处理。”
[相关文章 首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨、大法官埃琳娜·卡根、布雷特·卡瓦诺和艾米·科尼·巴雷特出席2026年2月24日美国国会大厦的国情咨文演讲。奇普·索莫迪维拉/盖蒂图片社 最高法院每个人都有话要说。为什么关税裁决有超过160页 6分钟阅读]
如果最高法院的保守派持这种看法，他们并未公开表示。
法院中共和党任命的大法官们对共和党立场的主要担忧是，该立场如何利用内战历史来为自己辩护，以及这些论点是否会排除提前投票和其他现代选举做法。
11月选举中的选民混乱风险未被充分讨论
在周一的听证会上，很少有人关注推翻密西西比州法律及类似法律的裁决可能在11月选举中造成的选民混乱风险。
由于最高法院20年前确立的法律原则，联邦法院通常不愿在选举临近时修改选举规则，因为法官不应在此时做出此类改变，以免造成选民混乱。
但当卡瓦诺在长时间听证会上唯一一次提到“珀塞尔原则”（Purcell principle，即法院应避免在选举前修改规则以减少混乱）时，克莱门特迅速淡化了任何有利于共和党全国委员会的裁决可能在今年晚些时候造成混乱的可能性。克莱门特说，该措施仅适用于11月的大选，而法院的裁决可能在6月底或7月初公布，距离大选还有数月时间，足够进行必要调整。
[相关视频 ip panel0319.jpg CNN 伊朗战争如何成为‘中期选举运动的背景音乐’ 1分48秒]
“我认为6月会给他们足够的时间”进行必要调整，克莱门特补充道，因为密西西比州的缺席选票必须在大选前45天寄出，所以有足够的机会调整投票说明。
但在周一辩论之前，全国的选举官员表示了完全相反的看法，警告称规则变更可能导致今年选举的大规模混乱和更高成本。
一群地方选举官员在法庭之友简报中告诉大法官们，另外13个州和华盛顿特区也有类似的选票法律，改变其程序以遵守法院裁决可能是一项棘手的任务。
“取消选举后选票接收截止日期将影响这些州2026年大选准备和管理的几乎所有方面，而距离大选只有几个月的时间，”简报中写道。
最高法院 最高法院大法官 国会新闻
[查看全部主题]
Facebook 推特[邮件]链接 话题链
链接已复制！
广告反馈
Takeaways from arguments in the Supreme Court case that could end grace periods for mail-in ballots | CNN Politics
By
[Tierney Sneed]
,
[John Fritze]
,
[Devan Cole]
Updated 13 min ago
Updated Mar 23, 2026, 3:52 PM ET
PUBLISHED Mar 23, 2026, 3:46 PM ET
Supreme Court Supreme Court justices Congressional news
[See all topics]
Facebook Tweet[Email]Link Threads
Link Copied!
The US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on March 23, 2026.
Evan Vucci/Reuters
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.]
Ad Feedback
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.
[Related live story Snow flurries fall outisde the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on March 12, 2026. Following record high temperatures the day before, Washington, DC, recieved snow flurries on Thursday. Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images Supreme Court appears skeptical of counting mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day]
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: Early voting.
Early voting isn’t technically at issue, but the back-and-forth over the arrival of absentee ballots dealt in a significant way with how to define the word “election.” The justices scrutinized what must happen on Election Day and what is permissible after that day – or before it. The court’s decision may well prompt future challenges to early voting, which most states offer.
Mostly quiet throughout the arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts jumped in with several questions aimed at understanding how a decision in favor of the RNC in the Mississippi case might affect early voting.
“If Election Day is the voting and taking, that has to be that day,” Roberts said, adding that he didn’t think Sauer was adequately explaining how early voting would not be jeopardized. “Maybe you’re not saying anything other than, ‘well, that’s different.’”
A majority of the court — both conservative and liberal justices — asked about early voting.
[Related article A voter walks past a sign requiring a photo ID at a polling location on March 5, 2024, in Mount Holly, North Carolina. Chris Carlson/AP/File Republicans in a growing number of states press ahead with Trump’s voting rules 7 min read]
“You’re saying that we have to go back to the mid-19th Century and say could Congress have possibly conceived of this kind of rule,” said liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who led the questioning on the issue. “Congress couldn’t have conceived of the kind of early voting that we have now. It couldn’t have conceived of a thousand other ways in which we administer elections now.”
Mississippi’s attorney repeatedly raised that very point: Tossing out post-election ballot receipts could jeopardize other functions election officials have for decades conduced after the formal Election Day.
Sauer told the justices that the Trump administration agrees that “early voting is still acceptable.” But when pressed on how to square that view his theory of the case, Sauer conceded it was a “challenging question.”
One issue that drew less attention was how the case might affect overseas military ballots. Many more states permit those to arrive in election offices after Election Day, and Mississippi has touted a federal law that acknowledged those deadlines while making it easier for the overseas voters to cast their ballots.
Still, on Monday, both Clement and Sauer said the court could rule against Mississippi while preserving grace periods for overseas voters.
‘Recalled’ ballots becomes central focus for conservatives
A technical debate about the significance of voters being able to “recall” their ballots after they drop them in the mailbox took on an outsized role in the arguments — and may play prove pivotal in how the court decides the case.
The US Postal Service allows people to “recall” sent mail before delivery in some circumstances.
Several conservatives, including Justices Barrett and Neil Gorsuch — hammered Mississippi’s attorney on the point. The issue is important because the state argues that the selection of a candidate has occurred as soon as a voter fills out their ballot and places it in the mail.
[Related article Gabriel Olivier of Jackson, Miss., a member of Warrior for Christ, cites phrases from the Bible as he protests the drag queen story time outside of Huntington Woods Public Library in Huntington Woods on Saturday, January 26, 2019. 01262019 Dragqueenstory 1 Junfu Han/Detroit Free Press/Imagn Supreme Court revives First Amendment lawsuit from street preacher who called concertgoers ‘whores,’ ‘Jezebels’ and ‘sissies’ 3 min read]
But, the skeptical conservatives asked, how can a ballot be final if a voter can recall the mail before it reaches the election office? Gorsuch offered a hypothetical involving a candidate who becomes embroiled in a sex scandal in the final days of a campaign and a large number of voters attempt to recall their mail-in ballots, enough to change the outcome.
“Not farfetched, I think,” Gorsuch said. “In that hypothetical, does the election happen on Election Day?”
Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart argued that the state doesn’t allow voters to recall their mailed ballots, but withered under scrutiny from Gorsuch and Barrett about how that works — or doesn’t — in practice. It’s not clear how often a voter attempts to stop a mailed ballot they have already shipped, but it is likely a small number.
Still, Barrett repeatedly returned to the question of finality and whether it undercuts how Mississippi is framing when an “election” takes place.
“I want to understand what your definition of finality is,” Barrett said at one point in an exchange that prompted several long pauses from Stewart. “It’s about your definition of ‘election.’ It’s about your definition of what it means to cast a vote.”
Liberal justice tries to make case about deference to states
The appeal by a liberal justice to see the case as about deference to states seemed to fall on deaf ears, even though that is an approach that typically animates conservatives, particularly in the election space.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the issue comes down to “who decides” when it comes to policy questions raised by mail ballot deadlines, such as how to handle recalled ballots or if postmarks should be required for ballots arriving after Election Day.
The Constitution generally leaves the administration of elections to states, but it also says Congress may step in with its own rules. In this case, Congress passed laws that standardized Election Day for federal offices as the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
“The question, I think, is whether Congress has precluded the states from making those calls, drawing those lines, and your position, as I understand it, is, no,” Jackson said, “that the scantness of Election Day in the federal statutes, actually is appointed your favor, because it indicates that Congress was leaving it to the states to draw the various lines that might arise in this circumstance.”
[Related article Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett attend the State of the Union address at the US Capitol on February 24, 2026. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Everyone has something to say at the Supreme Court. Why the tariffs ruling had more than 160 pages 6 min read]
If the court’s conservatives were seeing that case that way they didn’t voice it.
The main concern GOP-appointees on the court raised about the Republicans’ position was how it was using Civil War history to make its case and whether those arguments would foreclose early voting and other modern day election practices as well.
Risk of voter confusion in November not given much airtime
There was little attention during Monday’s hearing on the risk of confusing voters during November’s election with a ruling striking down Mississippi’s law and others like it.
Federal courts are often reluctant to tinker with election rules too close to a contest thanks to a two-decade-old legal doctrine from the Supreme Court that says such changes by judges should not be made, so as to avoid confusion among voters.
But when Kavanaugh became the only member of the court to raise the “Purcell principle” during the lengthy hearing, Clement quickly downplayed any notion that a ruling favorable to the Mississippi law’s challengers could create a chaotic situation later this year. Clement said the measure only applies to general elections, which would take place months after the court announces its decision, likely in late June or early July.
[Related video ip panel0319.jpg CNN How the Iran war is becoming ‘the soundtrack of the midterm election campaign’ 1:48]
“I think June would give them plenty of time” to make the necessary changes, Clement said, adding that since absentee ballots in Mississippi must be mailed out 45 days before a general election, there would ample opportunity for instructions on how to cast the ballot to be tweaked.
But ahead of Monday’s arguments, election officials across the country were saying the complete opposite, warning that a switch could lead to mass confusion in this year’s election — and higher costs.
A group of local election officials told the justices that 13 other states, and Washington, DC, have similar ballot laws on the books and that changing their procedures to comply with the court’s ruling could be a tricky task.
“Eliminating post-election ballot receipt deadlines would affect nearly every aspect of the preparation for and administration of the general election in these states in 2026, just months before it is set to occur,” the group said in an amicus brief.
Supreme Court Supreme Court justices Congressional news
[See all topics]
Facebook Tweet[Email]Link Threads
Link Copied!
Ad Feedback