What’s at Stake for Elections at the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court began hearing arguments for the new term on October 5, 2026. The Court will hear several important election-related cases during this term, which concludes in early summer 2027.

Here’s a breakdown of the key election-related cases on the docket and in the pipeline — and why voters and election officials alike should be paying attention.

Interim Decisions Impacting the 2026 Election

Additional election-related issues are moving through the federal courts and may ultimately reach the Supreme Court before the end of the 2026 term. Several of these cases address overlapping issues, so the exact vehicle that may prompt Supreme Court review remains unclear.

Executive Orders on Elections 

During his current term, President Trump has issued two executive orders related to elections. These executive orders have sought to impose numerous restrictions on voting access, including:

1. Onerous proof of citizenship requirements similar to those Congress has failed to enact in the SAVE America Act; and 
2. Restrictions on mail voting (including a prohibition on state law grace periods for mail ballots based on an interpretation of federal law that the Supreme Court rejected in last term’s case Watson v. RNC).

On August 24, the Court stayed a preliminary injunction issued by a Massachusetts district court that prevented implementation of Trump’s March 31, 2026 executive order. The stay temporarily cleared the way for new U.S. Postal Service regulations that impose new burdens on states conducting voting by mail. The same district court issued a new preliminary injunction after the Postal Service published the final version of the rules. 

On September 14, the Court declined to stay the new injunction, leaving the new postal rules blocked for the 2026 election. As cases challenging both executive orders continue to wind their way through federal trial and appellate courts, the Court may be called upon to weigh in again this term.

Mid-Decade Redistricting

The recent trend of states redrawing congressional districts mid-decade gained additional momentum following the Supreme Court’s decision in Callais last term. Several states are likely to continue these efforts this term. The Court may be called upon to issue preliminary and/or final decisions about the legality of newly proposed maps. 

In the September interim before the new term, the Court was already called on to weigh in on the dispute over Missouri’s congressional map. After the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that a pending referendum would let voters decide whether to implement the new districts passed by the legislature in 2025, state officials asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay that decision. The Court denied that request, but minutes later, a federal district court judge entered a temporary restraining order in a separate case that once again created controversy over Missouri’s congressional districts for the November election. Later that week, the Court stayed the district court’s order, seemingly restoring the clarity the state Supreme Court decision had provided.

However, within a week of the second Supreme Court ruling, the Eighth Circuit set a speedy hearing that resulted in a new permanent injunction renewing the Missouri controversy. The litigants went back to the Supreme Court for the third time within three weeks. On September 25, the Supreme Court issued a third opinion, with no noted dissents. The opinion deferred use of the 2025 congressional map until Missouri voters could weigh in on it in the November 2026 election. 

Federal Intervention and State Voter Lists

In 2025, federal authorities demanded that each state turn over its voter registration list, including sensitive personal information, for federal agencies to investigate and review. The majority of states refused, citing state and federal privacy laws that protect sensitive voter information. The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued 30 states in federal court seeking access. 

So far, 26 federal district courts have dismissed DOJ’s suits to obtain state voter lists. The courts have ruled that neither the Constitution nor congressionally passed federal laws entitle federal executive agencies to the information. The DOJ has appealed most of these losses to the federal appellate courts, and the Sixth Circuit has already denied its appeal in a case originating in Michigan. As these cases continue through numerous federal appellate circuits, one or more seem likely to reach the Supreme Court.

So far, 26 federal district courts have dismissed DOJ’s suits to obtain state voter lists. The courts have ruled that neither the Constitution nor congressionally passed federal laws entitle federal executive agencies to the information.

In addition, advocacy organizations, citing statutory privacy and constitutional concerns, sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to prohibit states from accessing a new version of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database. This version includes Social Security Administration data and is explicitly authorized for state voter list maintenance. The new system has drawn criticism for widespread incidents of incorrectly flagging eligible voters as potential “noncitizens.” 

In June 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, preventing DHS from making the new SAVE database available to states. DHS appealed this decision and asked both the appellate court and the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the district court’s ruling pending appeal. On September 25, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, granted the motion to stay the district court’s ruling, thus making the SAVE database available for use while the case is pending appeal. This ruling did not fully decide the case on the merits, and the appeal from the district court may ultimately return to the Supreme Court for full briefing and oral argument.

Merits Hearing Granted: RNC v. Mi Familia Vota 

If the court sides with Arizona, it could open the door for other states to pass onerous proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registration. 

What’s at Issue: Proof of Citizenship for Voter Registration

Arizona voters challenged two 2022 laws, and a district court struck down several proof-of-citizenship provisions, including provisions that:

1. Prohibited citizens from voting for president and voting by mail — unless they showed a passport or birth certificate (Arizona state law already prohibits citizens from voting for state candidates unless they show proof of citizenship); 
2. Required officials to throw out all state registration forms that did not include proof of citizenship (even though these voters would still qualify for some federal elections); and
3. Required county recorders to cancel voter registrations if they “have reason to believe” someone is not a citizen. 

Potential Impact on Voters 

This case could open the door for more states to follow Arizona’s lead and potentially exclude the many millions of U.S. citizens who don’t have an original birth certificate or a valid U.S. passport. Additionally, this case tests the application of the NVRA’s “quiet period,” which prohibits voter registration cancellations due to systematic list maintenance within 90 days of a federal election.

The Court’s ruling will determine whether states can cancel registrations of suspected non-citizens shortly before elections without leaving sufficient time to correct erroneous cancellations. 

The Legal Questions

 The RNC has asked the Court to determine:

• Whether the NVRA or a federal consent decree prohibits Arizona from requiring voter registration applicants to produce “satisfactory evidence” of U.S. citizenship when registering with a state registration form; and
• Whether the NVRA prohibits Arizona from implementing a program within 90 days of a federal election to cancel the registrations of voters who are not U.S. citizens.

Current Status

The Republican National Committee (RNC) joined the suit as intervenors in the district court and continued as appellants. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling, striking down these provisions for violating the U.S. Constitution and federal election laws. In February, the RNC filed a petition seeking Supreme Court review. The Court announced on June 29, 2026, that it would hear the case during its 2026 term. 

The parties are currently filing briefs to present their arguments to the Court. The briefing schedule currently runs through October. The Court may hear oral argument as soon as its December sitting, which begins on November 30, 2026. 

In the Pipeline: Pennsylvania v. Eakin; RNC v. Eakin 

The Court’s decision could clarify whether voters have constitutional protections against election officials rejecting mail ballots missing nonessential information. 

What’s at Issue: Undated Mail Ballots

A Pennsylvania voter and several organizations challenged how Pennsylvania enforces the requirement that voters return mail ballots with the current date next to their signature on ballot return envelopes. County election officials treat the date requirement as essential, and they do not count undated ballots. A federal district court ruled in the challengers’ favor and enjoined county officials from tossing out undated ballots. The court held that the date requirement “burdens the fundamental right to vote” and that there was “no evidence that the date requirement serves any state interest.”

The Third Circuit panel affirmed the district court’s ruling. Pennsylvania and the other appellants sought a review by the full Third Circuit (en banc). While that petition was pending, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court ruled in Center for Coalfield Justice v. Washington County Board of Elections that county boards must notify voters with potentially disqualifying errors on their mail ballot return envelopes, so the voter has an opportunity to cast a provisional ballot in person as a backstop in case their mail ballot is rejected. The Third Circuit narrowly rejected the petition for rehearing, with several dissenters noting that the original panel’s decision did not analyze Pennsylvania law post-Coalfield Justice. 

Potential Impact on Voters

Pennsylvania lacks a uniform statutory process for voters to cure minor errors on mail ballot return envelopes. Cases like Coalfield Justice have established certain safeguards, but the remedial processes for mail-ballot errors vary from county to county. Some counties may do little more than notify voters of undated mail ballots and toss them out if the voter fails to cast a provisional ballot in person.

The Court’s ruling will determine whether states can cancel registrations of suspected non-citizens shortly before elections without leaving sufficient time to correct erroneous cancellations. 

The Legal Questions

Pennsylvania’s petition only asks the Court to weigh in on a single question: Whether Pennsylvania’s requirement that mail-in voters provide a handwritten date when signing a preprinted declaration on a ballot return envelope violates the First or Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The RNC’s petition asks for resolution of several questions: 

• Whether a non-discriminatory rule imposing the usual burdens of voting is constitutional;
• Whether a mail voting rule is only subject to “rational basis” review when the state makes in-person voting available; and
• Where Anderson-Burdick* applies, whether a minimally burdensome voting rule is subject only to “rational basis” review, and whether a rule’s burden is measured by the cost of compliance or the consequence of non-compliance.

Current Status

Pennsylvania has asked the Supreme Court first to consider granting its petition, vacating the Third Circuit’s prior decision, and remanding for further proceedings (GVR) in light of the ruling in Coalfield Justice. Barring that, Pennsylvania has asked the Court to take up the case to resolve a split among federal appeals courts over the burden states must meet to justify rules that impose burdens on voters. On June 29, the Court invited the U.S. Solicitor General to file a brief stating the United States’ interest in the case. This invitation for input from the Solicitor General generally signals that the Court will ultimately decide to review the case and hear oral argument. 

*Anderson-Burdick is a test named for two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that courts often apply when considering challenges to voting restrictions. Under the test, courts balance the burden a law imposes on participation in the electoral process against a state’s asserted interests. Morgan Munroe & Sarah Kessler, “Levels of Scrutiny Applied by State Courts, Explained,” published May 12, 2025.