Supreme Court backs mail-in ballots received after Election Day

Key facts

• The U.S. Supreme Court upheld state laws allowing mail-in ballots received after Election Day to be counted.
• The Supreme Court rejected a Republican challenge to Mississippi's five-day grace period for mail-in ballots.
• The decision impacts voting practices in about 30 states.
• Mississippi law allows mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received within five business days after the election.
• President Trump is intensifying his focus on the SAVE America Act.
• The SAVE America Act is a bill aimed at restricting mail-in voting.
• President Trump identified several senators as "Hold Outs" on the SAVE America Act.
• The Supreme Court declined to hear Alan Dershowitz's appeal in his defamation case against CNN.
• Dershowitz's case challenged the 'actual malice' standard for public figures in defamation cases.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws that allow mail-in ballots received after Election Day to be counted, rejecting a Republican challenge to Mississippi's five-day grace period. This ruling impacts voting practices in about 30 states across the country. The specific Mississippi law in question permits mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive within five business days after the election. Republicans had challenged this practice, but the Supreme Court sided against them.

Following this decision, President Trump is reportedly intensifying his focus on the SAVE America Act. This proposed legislation aims to restrict mail-in voting. President Trump has identified several senators as "Hold Outs" regarding this bill, indicating a push for their support.

The Supreme Court's decision on mail-in ballots is significant as it affirms existing practices in numerous states. The challenge to Mississippi's law was an attempt to overturn these procedures.

Separately, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Alan Dershowitz concerning his $300 million defamation lawsuit against CNN. This case had challenged the 'actual malice' standard required for public figures in defamation cases.