Know your vote. Take a look at your sample ballot now!

Watson v. Republican National Committee

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Federalism Banner-Blue.png
Supreme Court of the United States
Watson v. Republican National Committee
Docket number: 24-1260
Term: 2025
Court: United States Supreme Court
Important dates
Argument: March 23, 2026
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson

Watson v. Republican National Committee is a case scheduled for argument before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 23, 2026, during the court's October 2025-2026 term.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerns Mississippi's House Bill 1521. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The question presented: "The question presented is whether the federal election-day statutes preempt a state law that allows ballots that are cast by federal election day to be received by election officials after that day."[1]
  • The outcome: The appeal is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Why it matters: This case centers on whether federal election statutes preempt state laws that allow ballots cast by Election Day to be received and counted after that day. The Court’s decision will determine how to interpret the meaning of a single national election day for federal offices and clarify the extent to which states retain authority to administer ballot-receipt deadlines. The outcome will have significant implications for election administration nationwide, particularly for states that permit post–Election Day receipt of mail-in ballots and for the uniformity of federal election rules. [2]

    Background

    Federalism
    Federalism Icon 200x200.png
    •Key terms
    •     Court cases
    •Major arguments
    • State responses to federal mandates
    •State oversight of federal grants
    • Federalism by the numbers
    • Index

    Personnel

    The following are the parties to this case:[3]

    • Appellant: Mississippi
      • Legal counsel: Scott Grant Stewart (Mississippi Attorney General's Office)
    • Appellee: Republican National Committee, et al.
      • Legal counsel: Gilbert Charles Dickey (Consovoy McCarthy, PLLC)

    Policy background

    See also: Timelines related to absentee/mail-in ballot processing and counting

    On July 8, 2020, Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves signed House Bill 1521, which allowed absentee ballots to be counted if they were postmarked by Election Day and received by local election officials within five days of the election.[4][5] The legislation was enacted in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.[6]

    As of 2025, Mississippi was one of 15 states to allow absentee/mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrived within a set period of time after the election. States have different deadlines for when a ballot must arrive to be counted. Six states had a receipt deadline between one and four days after the election. Seven states and D.C. had a deadline between five and 10 days after Election Day. Two states—Illinois and Washington—had a deadline between 14 and 20 days after the election.

    Elected officials have debated whether states should count absentee/mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day. In 2025, four states — Kansas, North Dakota, Ohio, and Utah — enacted legislation requiring absentee/mail-in ballots to arrive before the close of polls on Election Day to be counted. All four states previously had later deadlines for ballots to arrive, provided they were postmarked by Election Day.

    While litigation over Mississippi's law was playing out, President Donald Trump (R) issued an executive order on March 25, 2025, instructing the U.S. attorney general to take action to prevent states from counting ballots that arrive after Election Day. The order, which referenced the Fifth Circuit’s ruling on Mississippi's law, was challenged in court in June 2025.[7]

    Case summary

    On January 26, 2024, the Republican National Committee, the Republican Party of Mississippi, Matthew Lamb, and James Perry filed a lawsuit challenging the law in federal court. The lawsuit argued that federal law establishes a uniform, national Election Day for federal elections that would preempt Mississippi’s statute.[8] The Libertarian Party of Mississippi filed a similar case on February 5, 2024.[9] On March 4, 2024, the cases were consolidated into Republican National Committee v. Wetzel.[10]

    On July 28, 2024, Judge Louis Guirola of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi issued an order of summary judgment in favor of Mississippi, finding that the law was not preempted by federal statute. The Republican National Committee appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on August 6, 2024.[10]

    On October 25, 2024, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit found that federal law preempts Mississippi's absentee ballot grace period and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with their opinion.[11]

    On March 14, 2025, the Fifth Circuit declined a motion from Mississippi to rehear the case en banc before the court's full membership.[12] On April 18, the district court paused proceedings in the case pending "the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court and the conclusion of any Supreme Court proceedings on the merits."[10]

    On June 6, 2025, the state appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case on November 10, 2025.[13] Oral arguments were scheduled for March 23, 2026.[14]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case in reverse chronological order:[10]

    • March 23, 2026: The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument.
    • November 10, 2025: The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • June 6, 2025: Watson appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • October 25, 2024: The Fifth Circuit reversed in part and vacated in part the lower court's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with their opinion.
    • August 6, 2024: The Republican National Committee appealed Guirola's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
    • July 28, 2024: Judge Louis Guirola of the Southern District of Mississippi issued an order of summary judgment in favor of the state of Mississippi.
    • March 4, 2024: The two cases were consolidated into Republican National Committee v. Wetzel.
    • February 5, 2024: The Libertarian Party of Mississippi filed a similar lawsuit, Libertarian Party of Mississippi v. Wetzel.
    • January 26, 2024: The Republican National Committee, the Republican Party of Mississippi, Matthew Lamb, and James Perry sued over Mississippi's five-day absentee ballot grace period in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The defendants were Harrison County Circuit Clerk Justin Wetzel, Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson (R), and Toni Jo Diaz, Becky Payne, Barbara Kimball, Christene Brice, and Carolyn Handler, who are members of the Harrison County Election Commission.

    Question presented

    The petitioner presented the following question to the court:[1]

    Question presented:
    “ The question presented is whether the federal election-day statutes preempt a state law that allows ballots that are cast by federal election day to be received by election officials after that day.[15] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of the case will be posted here when it is made available.

    Transcript

    A transcript of the case will be posted here when it is made available.

    Outcome

    The case is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Lower court rulings

    On January 26, 2024, the Republican National Committee, the Republican Party of Mississippi, Matthew Lamb, and James Perry sued over Mississippi's five-day absentee ballot grace period in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The defendants were Harrison County Circuit Clerk Justin Wetzel, Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson (R), and Toni Jo Diaz, Becky Payne, Barbara Kimball, Christene Brice, and Carolyn Handler, who are members of the Harrison County Election Commission.[10]

    On February 5, 2024, the Libertarian Party of Mississippi filed a similar case. On March 4, 2024, the two cases were consolidated into Republican National Committee v. Wetzel.[9][10]

    Two lower court rulings were made prior to the Supreme Court agreeing to hear this case. Those rulings were:[16]

    • October 25, 2024: A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed in part and vacated in part Guirola's ruling and remanded it to the district court for further action, ruling that Mississippi's statute was preempted by federal law.

    In addition, the Fifth Circuit denied a petition from Mississippi, represented by Attorney General Lynn Fitch's office, to rehear the case en banc before the full appeals court.[12]

    Southern District of Mississippi ruling

    On July 28, 2024, Judge Louis Guirola of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi issued an order of summary judgment in favor of the state of Mississippi. Guirola was appointed to the court in 2004 by President George W. Bush (R). To read the full ruling, click here. Guirola wrote:[17]

    “ The Elections Clause has two functions. Upon the States it imposes the duty ('shall be prescribed') to prescribe the time, place, and manner of electing Representatives and Senators; upon Congress it confers the power to alter those regulations or supplant them altogether. ... In the absence of federal law regulating absentee mail-in ballot procedures, states retain the authority and the constitutional charge to establish their lawful time, place, and manner boundaries.

    The Court finds that the RNC, the Mississippi Republican Party, and the Libertarian Party each have standing to proceed with these lawsuits. They have sufficiently alleged negative consequences they suffer because of Mississippi’s statute allowing post-election receipt of ballots mailed by election day. However, the Court also finds that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as to all of Plaintiffs’ claims. Mississippi’s statutory procedure for counting lawfully cast absentee ballots, postmarked on or before election day, and received no more than five business days after election day is consistent with federal law and does not conflict with the Elections Clause, the Electors’ Clause, or the election-day statutes.[15]

    		”

    The plaintiffs appealed Judge Guirola's ruling to the Fifth Circuit on August 6, 2024.[10]

    Fifth Circuit reverses district court ruling

    On October 25, 2024, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed in part and vacated in part Guirola's ruling and remanded it to the district court for further action, ruling that Mississippi's statute was preempted by federal law. The order was written by Judge Andrew Oldham. The table below lists the judges who heard the case and the president who appointed the judge.

    Republican National Committee v. Wetzel ruling
    Judge Appointed by
    James Ho Donald Trump Republican Party
    Stuart Kyle Duncan Donald Trump Republican Party
    Andrew Oldham Donald Trump Republican Party


    To read the full ruling, click here. In the conclusion of his ruling, Oldham wrote:[11]

    “ Justice Kavanaugh recently emphasized: “To state the obvious, a State cannot conduct an election without deadlines . .. A deadline is not un- constitutional merely because of voters' own failures to take timely steps to ensure their franchise.” ... Federal law requires voters to take timely steps to vote by Election Day. And federal law does not permit the State of Mississippi to extend the period for voting by one day, five days, or 100 days. The State’s contrary law is preempted.[15] ”

    Fifth Circuit denies motion to rehear the case en banc

    Following the ruling from the three-judge panel, Fitch's office filed a motion requesting that the case be reheard en banc, or before the entire Fifth Circuit. On March 14, 2025, the court voted 10-5 against rehearing the case en banc. Judges Andrew Oldham and James Ho wrote concurring opinions in support of rejecting the motion to rehear the case. Both Oldham and Ho were appointed by President Donald Trump (R). Judges James Graves and Stephen Higginson wrote dissenting opinions. Both Graves and Higginson were appointed by President Barack Obama (D). To read the opinions, click here.

    In his concurring opinion, Oldham wrote:[12]

    “ According to the dissenting opinion, States should be free to accept ballots for as long as they’d like after Election Day. That is, of course, a question for Congress. But even if it was a question for federal judges, do our dissenting colleagues really think that federal law imposes no time limits at all on ballot acceptance? True, statutory deadlines prescribe dates by which the certification of presidential electors must occur. ... At best, those provide a lastditch backstop—several weeks after Election Day. At worst, they permit States to engage in gamesmanship, experiment with deadlines, and renew the very ills Congress sought to eliminate: fraud, uncertainty, and delay. ... And nothing whatsoever prevents the States from innovating with ever-later ballot receipt deadlines 2 months, or even 2 years, after Election Day in congressional elections. The dissenting opinion’s only response is to say States are unlikely to do that—but such pragmatic assurances only underscore that the dissenting opinion lacks any legal limit.

    The opinion the dissenters wanted to rehear en banc and the opinion the panel wrote are very different animals. I concur in the court’s decision not to pretend they’re the same.[15]

    		”

    In his dissenting opinion, Graves wrote:[12]

    “ I would grant the petition for rehearing. At a minimum, this case presents a question of exceptional importance: whether federal law prohibits states from counting valid ballots that are timely cast and received by election officials within a time period designated by state law. The substantial, if not overwhelming, weight of authority—including dictionary definitions, federal and state caselaw, and legislative history—counsels against the preemptive interpretation that the panel adopted. Moreover, the opinion conflicts with the tradition that forms the bedrock for our nation’s governance—federalism—which vests states with substantial discretion to regulate the intricacies of federal elections. Simply stated, federal law does not mandate that ballots be received by state officials before Election Day’s conclusion, and the panel’s contrary holding is erroneous.[15] ”

    On June 6, 2025, Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch's office, representing the state of Mississippi, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.[18]

    Cases related to voting in the October 2025 SCOTUS term

    As of January 2026, the Supreme Court was scheduled to hear three other cases related to voting during its October 2025 term.

    The sections below detail each of these cases, including background on the case and the question presented to the court.

    Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections

    See also: Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections

    The case concerned whether a candidate, U.S. Rep. Michael Bost (R), has the legal standing to challenge an Illinois law allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted up to 14 days after Election Day. The argument took place on October 8, 2025. SCOTUS agreed to hear the case on June 2. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.

    HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerns whether the petitioners had Article III standing to bring this case. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "The sole question presented here is whether Petitioners, as federal candidates, have pleaded sufficient factual allegations to show Article III standing to challenge state time, place, and manner regulations concerning their federal elections."[1]
  • The outcome: The Supreme Court held that as a candidate for office, Congressman Bost has the legal standing to challenge the rules regarding counting the votes in his election.[19]

    • Louisiana v. Callais

    See also: Louisiana v. Callais

    The case concerned whether Louisiana’s congressional maps improperly used race to draw the 6th Congressional District and whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is unconstitutional. The argument took place on March 24, 2025. On June 27, 2025, SCOTUS set the case to be re-heard during the October 2025 term. The case was re-argued on October 15, 2025. The case came on a jurisdictional statement from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

    HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned allegations of racial gerrymandering in Louisiana's congressional voting district maps and Thornburg v. Gingles (1986). Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented:
    1. "Did the majority err in finding that race predominated in the Legislature's enactment of S.B. 8?
    2. "Did the majority err in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny?
    3. "Did the majority err in subjecting S.B. 8 to the Gingles preconditions?
    4. "Is this action non-justiciable?""[1]
  • The outcome: The appeal is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.


    • National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission

    See also: National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission

    The case concerned whether limits in federal law on coordination in spending between candidates and political parties are constitutional. The argument took place on December 9, 2025. SCOTUS agreed to hear the case on June 30. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

    HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerns the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "Whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with ‘party coordinated communications’ as defined in 11 C.F.R. § 109.37."[1]
  • The outcome: The appeal is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.


    • October term 2025-2026

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2025-2026

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 6, 2025. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions by mid-June.[20]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Supreme Court of the United States, "24-1260 WATSON V. REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE QP", November 10, 2025 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "qp" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "qp" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "qp" defined multiple times with different content
    2. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Justices agree to decide major election law case"
    3. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "No. 24-1260," accessed November 21, 2025
    4. ↑ LegisScan, "MS HB1521 2020," accessed November 21, 2025
    5. ↑ Mississippi Legislature, "House Bill 1521," accessed November 21, 2025
    6. ↑ Magnolia Tribune, "Absentee voting changes possible amid COVID-19 social distancing," June 16, 2020
    7. ↑ PBS, "Lawsuit from state attorneys general challenges Trump’s executive order on election overhaul," June 6, 2025
    8. ↑ League of Women Voters, "RNC v. Wetzel Complaint for Decleratory and Injunctive Relief," January 26, 2024
    9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 PacerMonitor, "Libertarian Party of Mississippi v. Wetzel et al," accessed November 21, 2025
    10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 PacerMonitor, "Republican National Committee et al v. Wetzel et al," accessed November 21, 2025
    11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Protect the Vote, "RNC v. Wetzel Fifth Circuit order," accessed November 21, 2025
    12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 League of Women Voters, "RNC v. Wetzel On Petition for Rehearing En Banc," accessed November 21, 2025
    13. ↑ SCOTUSBlog, "Watson v. Republican National Committee (Election Law)," accessed November 21, 2025
    14. ↑ SCOTUSBlog, "Watson v. Republican National Committee (Election Law)," accessed February 4, 2026
    15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    16. ↑ Justia, "Republican National Committee v. Wetzel, No. 24-60395 (5th Cir. 2024)," accessed November 18, 2025
    17. ↑ Protect the Vote, "RNC v. Wetzel Memorandum Opinion and Order," July 28, 2024
    18. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI," accessed November 21, 2025
    19. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named opinion
    20. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    v • e
    Federalism
    Overviews
    Terms
    Court cases
    Legislation
    Federal grant survey
    Federalism by the numbers
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Watson_v._Republican_National_Committee&oldid=11049966"