Supreme Court Delivers Major Rulings on Mail-In Ballots and Birthright Citizenship
- Rex Ballard
- Jun 30
- 3 min read
U.S. Supreme Court Building - Hill International
In back-to-back rulings at the end of its term, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed two hot-button issues: mail-in voting deadlines and birthright citizenship. The decisions carry national weight and are directly relevant to California voters concerned with election integrity and immigration enforcement.
Mail-In Ballots: States Can Use Grace Periods
On June 29, in a 5-4 decision (Watson v. Republican National Committee), the Court upheld Mississippi’s law allowing absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received within five business days.
Majority Opinion (Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson): Federal election-day statutes require voters to cast or mail ballots by Election Day, but do not impose a nationwide receipt deadline on states. “The election-day statutes require the electorate’s choice to be made on election day… But [they] do not set a deadline for ballot receipt,” Barrett wrote. The ruling reverses the Fifth Circuit and preserves similar grace periods in roughly 14–15 states plus D.C.
Chester County changes mail, absentee ballot envelope color - WHYY
Dissent and Criticism (Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch; Kavanaugh joined most): Alito argued that historically, an “election” on a designated day meant completing ballot collection by that day. States long imposed receipt deadlines to comply with federal law and prevent fraud. Allowing ballots to arrive days later risks late surges, manipulation, and eroded public trust. “Having an ‘election’ on a particular day meant completing ballot collection on that day,” Alito wrote. Critics, including election-integrity advocates, warn that this weakens safeguards in close races and could encourage further expansions of mail voting in states like California.
Local Impact: California’s expansive mail-in system faces no new federal restrictions, but the dissent’s fraud concerns resonate with Shasta County voters and officials prioritizing secure, timely processes. The ruling explicitly states that mail-in ballots must be postmarked on or before election day. California election laws allow non-postmarked ballots to be counted. This may invite further legal challenges in California.
Birthright Citizenship: Broad 14th Amendment Rule Reaffirmed
On June 30, in a 6-3 decision (Trump v. Barbara), the Court struck down President Trump’s Executive Order 14160, which sought to deny citizenship to certain children born in the U.S. after February 20, 2025, including those whose parents were unlawfully present.
Majority Opinion (Chief Justice John Roberts): Children born on U.S. soil to parents who are here illegally are U.S. citizens at birth under the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. They are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States because they are born within its territory and generally subject to its laws. The ruling reaffirms United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and rejects limits based on parental domicile or allegiance as revisionist.
Practical Effect for Children of Undocumented Parents: These children remain automatic citizens from birth and are entitled to full rights (passports, Social Security, etc.). The decision does not grant legal status or amnesty to their undocumented parents, whose immigration consequences remain unchanged.
Chief Justice Roberts Portrays His Court as Heroic | The Nation
Dissenting Views and Conservative Criticism: The dissents offered a strong originalist challenge. Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Gorsuch) argued that “subject to the jurisdiction” requires primary allegiance and domicile (permanent home). Children of undocumented parents typically retain ties to their parents’ home country and fall outside the full jurisdiction the 14th Amendment’s framers intended—focused on freed slaves with no other homeland. Thomas called the majority’s approach historically inaccurate and warned that it repurposes the Amendment for modern policy goals.
Justice Samuel Alito emphasized narrower historical limits on jus soli, viewing unlawful presence as creating situations outside complete U.S. jurisdiction. Critics, including Trump supporters, argue the ruling preserves incentives for illegal immigration (“anchor babies”), affects congressional apportionment and public resources, and should be addressed by Congress through legislation rather than judicial fiat.
Local Relevance: In California, the status quo continues. This sustains debates in Shasta County and beyond over border security, census impacts, and enforcement priorities.
What These Rulings Mean Moving Forward
The mail-in decision preserves state flexibility while highlighting integrity risks raised in dissent. The birthright ruling locks in broad constitutional citizenship for children of undocumented parents but leaves legislative avenues open. Both cases underscore divisions over original meaning versus practical governance.
Shasta Unfiltered will track local reactions from the Shasta County residents, election officials, and community leaders as the 2026 midterms approach. Full opinions are available at supremecourt.gov. Oral arguments can be viewed on C-SPAN and YouTube.
Stay informed with honest coverage at shastaunfiltered.com.
