The Lawletter Vol. 51 No. 5
Anne Hemenway, Senior Attorney
The United States Supreme Court was busy during the 2025-2026 term hearing and deciding numerous decisions which could impact the upcoming mid-term elections. The cases brought before the Court ranged from narrowing the scope of the Voting Rights Act to campaign financing to absentee ballot counting. The following are summaries of just a few of the decisions over the past six months.
In Louisiana v. Callais, 608 U.S. 85, 146 S. Ct. 1131 (2026), the Supreme Court held that under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U.S.C. §§ 10301, et seq. (the "VRA"), a state cannot be required to create additional majority-minority districts in its state redistricting map if the state's plan is already in compliance with the VRA. The Court's majority ruled that any such plan would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Earlier, a federal judge in Robinson v. Ardoin, 605 F. Supp. 3d 759 (M.D. La. 2022), vacated and remanded, 86 F.4th 574 (5th Cir. 2023), ruled that the state's 2022 congressional map violated Section 2 of the VRA because it did not include an additional majority-black district. After the state redrew its maps to conform with the federal court's decision, the new map was challenged. The court in Callais v. Landry, 732 F. Supp. 3d 574 (W.D. La. 2024), ruled that the new map violated the Fourteenth Amendment, and the State of Louisiana appealed to the Supreme Court. In its April 29, 2026 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the lower court's order to add a second majority-minority district in the new Louisiana congressional map constituted unconstitutional racial gerrymandering and rendered the map unenforceable.
In Watson v. Republican National Committee, 146 S. Ct. 2165 (2026), the Supreme Court held that federal election statutes, 3 U.S.C. § 1, 2 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 7, do not prevent the State of Mississippi from counting absentee ballots which are postmarked by election day but received up to five days later. The Court confirmed that while federal law, specifically 3 U.S.C. § 1 and 2 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 7, set the day when the voter must make their choices, that is, when ballots must be cast, state laws determine when the ballot must be received.
The next day, on June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, 146 S. Ct. 2404 (2026), that 52 U.S.C. § 30116(d), which capped how much political parties could spend in coordination with their candidates, was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Justice Kavanaugh, who wrote the majority opinion, held that the statute imposed a "significant" burden on political parties' ability to communicate about and support their candidates, and that coordinated spending is a form of political expression and, thus, free speech. The majority's opinion specifically overruled Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado II), 533 U.S. 431 (2001). Justice Kagan wrote the dissenting opinion and argued that Colorado II should still control and that existing laws prevent quid pro quo corruption in politics.
The most recent and confusing rulings regarding state officials being the primary administrators of federal elections culminated on August 24, 2026, when the Supreme Court issued a ruling on its emergency docket in Trump v. California, No. 26A124, 2026 U.S. LEXIS 2996, 609 U.S. ___ (Aug. 24, 2026). In that case, President Trump issued an executive order which, among other things, directed the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) to initiate rules allowing for the voluntary submission by states of voter lists to whom the state intended to provide mail-in or absentee ballots. The USPS would then establish an official Mail-In Participation List and the USPS would be restricted from processing mail-in ballots to individuals not on the list. The executive order included other matters but was immediately challenged by several states and the District of Columbia on the grounds that the executive order infringed on the state's authority to administer elections.
The Massachusetts federal court agreed with the states' challenge and enjoined federal defendants from implementing the provisions for the federal mid-term elections. See California v. Trump, 835 F. Supp. 3d 288 (D. Mass. 2026). The First Circuit denied the government's motion to stay the district court's injunction, but held that the injunction was specifically limited to the 23 plaintiff states and D.C. that challenged the original executive order. See California v. Trump, 183 F.4th 52 (1st Cir. 2026). The government then filed an emergency application to the Supreme Court. On August 24, 2026, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's stay on the grounds that it is likely to succeed on its argument that the Federal District Court lacked jurisdiction because the states that challenged the executive order lacked standing and the challenges were not ripe for adjudication. Trump v. California, 2026 U.S. LEXIS 2996. The Court also held that the executive order caused only speculative injury to states and did not cause imminent harm. It remains unclear, however, whether the USPS is presently conducting rulemaking regarding state voter lists.
