Germany won’t be advancing to the round of 16 at the 2026 FIFA World Cup, and some might think the Germans have a legitimate gripe about how their loss to Paraguay in the round of 32 unfolded. In the final minutes of the first half of extra time, Germany defender Jonathan Tah scored on a header off a corner kick that would’ve given his side a 2-1 lead. However, it was determined that Germany defender Waldemar Anton fouled Paraguay goalkeeper Orlando Gill after a VAR review, disallowing the goal. Germany went on to lose in penalty kicks in arguably one of the biggest upsets in men’s World Cup history. Before Germany’s loss, though, at least one former goalkeeper sided with the Germans over what happened. “I don’t think it’s a foul,” former Denmark and Manchester United goalkeeper Peter Schmeichel said on FOX’s “World Cup Live” in between the extra time periods. “I actually don’t think Anton did anything. He’s just there. The goalkeeper runs straight into him, and I think they got that wrong.” Not everyone on the panel agreed with Schmeichel. Former Nigeria midfielder John Obi Mikel argued that the attacker’s positioning justified the referee’s whistle, noting that the player was blocking the keeper without looking at the play. “I think it’s a foul,” Mikel said. “For me, when he impeded the goalkeeper, you can see the goalkeeper has his eyes on the ball. He has his eyes on the ball all the way through and the player’s just standing there. He’s not thinking about the ball. He’s not looking at the ball. And that’s exactly what happened. To me, it looks a bit soft. But I think the referee has made the right decision.” Former USA forward Clint Dempsey broke the tie on the panel, choosing to back Schmeichel’s perspective. “When you’ve got a goalkeeper who is a part of the goalkeeper union who says it’s not a foul, then it’s not a foul,” Dempsey said. The disallowed goal ultimately kept the game level, and Germany never had as good of a chance to take the lead as it did at that moment. It wound up losing in penalty kicks, 4-3, with Tah missing a penalty kick in the final round before Paraguay’s José Canale scored, continuing a rough streak for Germany in recent World Cups.Latest Sports News from FOX Sports
The 2026 FIFA World Cup turned in its first stunning knockout stage result as Paraguay defeated four-time champions Germany in a penalty shootout after a 1-1 draw over 120 minutes. For the first time ever, Germany has been eliminated at the World Cup in a penalty shootout. For the second time ever, Paraguay has won a World Cup knockout game. The biggest story in this game, of course, was just how well Paraguay defended over 120 minutes. With excellent commitment and communication, Paraguay’s defense was near impenetrable. On the one occasion Germany found the back of the net, Paraguay did not get down and let the dam burst. It kept up its game plan and got into the shootout. For Paraguay, it will likely need an even stronger defensive effort as France might be its next opponent (if Les Bleus get past Sweden). For Germany, it is soul-searching after a third straight World Cup disappointment. Here are five takeaways from the match: 1. Gill The Hero In A Massive Upset Orlando Gill, 26, will go down as the biggest player in Paraguay’s historic win over Germany. Gill has never played for a club outside of Paraguay, and this was only his 10th cap for the national team. He made six saves and then two in the shootout to stun Germany. Whenever Germany tested him, he had the answer. The shootout was full of drama as Gill made two big saves to give Paraguay two chances in the fourth and fifth rounds to win it. When Paraguay failed in those two attempts, it was given a third shot at a winner when Jonathan Tah shot way over the bar. José Canale then converted to send Paraguay off to the round of 16. 2. Paraguay’s Defensive Shape Coming into this game, everyone knew Paraguay was going to sit back and defend. Since Gio Reyna scored a goal in the final minutes of its 4-1 loss to the United States, Paraguay’s defense has been outstanding. First, there was the 1-0 win over Türkiye, where Paraguay had to play the entire second half down a man. Then there was the 0-0 draw with Australia, where Gustavo Alfaro’s team made no defensive mistakes and did enough to advance out of group play despite the poor start. This was a completely different test to go against four-time champions Germany. From the start, Alfaro had his team in a tight and compact 4-4-2 formation that sat deep, with 11 players typically behind the ball. Germany had very little space to work up the middle. This was not simply about bunkering or parking the bus. In the first half, Paraguay showed a lot of intelligence in how well it defended. Depending on where Germany was, certain players would step up to defend while others kept shape. Then the players would switch and get back into shape. There was little space between the midfield line and the backline, and this gave Germany no room to attack through the middle. Paraguay frequently allowed Germany to have the ball in the wide areas and took a gamble that Germany would not be able to quickly switch the point of attack with long passes or be able to dribble through a maze of Paraguayan defenders. For most of the game, it worked. Paraguay knew this was going to make things difficult offensively because whenever La Albirroja began a possession, its players were all deep and close together. The initial passes were often not there, and that resulted in many possessions that were quickly lost. But that was a tradeoff Paraguay was willing to make to defend well through its shape, which it only reluctantly broke. The only mistake Paraguay made defensively was when Germany equalized in the 54th minute. On the play, Florian Wirtz sent a ball into the box, and it found the head of Kai Havertz, who flicked it on into the goal. It was a rare mistake from Paraguay, whose defenders were slow to switch off when the ball was delivered. Aside from that, it was 120 minutes of near-perfect defense. 3. Paraguay’s Goal Exposed Germany In the first half, Paraguay’s game plan was working to perfection. Germany was frustrated offensively, and Paraguay was able to pounce on one of its very few opportunities. It began with Damián Bobadilla winning the ball deep in the attacking half. He then played the ball to Miguel Amiron on the right side. Almiron then advanced the ball to his Atlanta United club teammate Matías Galarza, who skillfully cut in from the right wing. Galarza then found a streaking Julio Enciso, who headed past a helpless Manuel Neuer. Germany showed its vulnerability on this play as it was not careful with the ball in the middle of the field and was slow to shift into a defensive formation, which allowed Enciso to move into the middle. Alfaro deserves a lot of credit for his decisions. Bobadilla’s tournament began terribly as he committed an own goal in the loss to the United States. But then, he played the second half as Paraguay fought for a win while down a man. In this game, Bobadilla returned to the starting lineup and was excellent defensively and his defensive effort created the goal. Meanwhile, Galarza continued to be Paraguay’s best player on both sides of the ball. His defensive work rate was excellent and, once again, he came up with a big play. First, it was the goal against Turkiye; this time it was an assist against Germany. 4. VAR Decision Will Loom By now, everyone has their opinion of VAR. But the 105th-minute decision will be talked about for a long time. Jonathan Tah headed home a corner delivered by Nathaniel Brown, but VAR ultimately determined that Paraguay goalkeeper Orlando Gill was blocked by Waldemar Anton. There was contact on Gill, but it did not seem anything beyond what normally happens on crowded set-piece deliveries into the box. For German players, officials, and fans, this VAR decision will be talked about for a long, long time. 5. Soul-Searching For Germany Losses happen. Upsets happen. Every team will lose, and every good team will eventually be beaten. For Germany, however, the pattern has been established that this team is not one of the elite teams in the world. Following its 2014 World Cup triumph, Germany did not get out of the group stages in 2018 and 2022. Is elimination in the round of 32 any better? The recent Euros have only been marginally better, with the team suffering elimination in the round of 16 in 2021 and the quarterfinals in 2024. At no point since 2014 has Germany been close to winning a major tournament. This loss is going to continue the ongoing soul-searching in the federation. There will be the usual discussion points whether Julian Nagelsmann is the right coach. But there will be broader questions on important topics such as player development within the federation and within the country’s top league, the Bundesliga. This is a painful loss for Germany and one that could force change within its federation.Latest Sports News from FOX Sports
Paraguay pulled off one of the biggest upsets in World Cup history on Monday, knocking out Germany in a penalty shootout. The result didn’t come without controversy. Germany had a goal from Jonathan Tah ruled out in extra time after a foul was called during the preceding corner kick. There were five yellow cards handed out during extra time in what was a tense and physical game. So, where does Paraguay’s upset rank? Let’s dive into the five biggest upsets in the World Cup knockout stage according to differences in the latest FIFA rankings before the tournament. Entering the 1994 World Cup in the United States, Germany was the reigning champion and the No. 1-ranked team in the FIFA World Rankings. It had also made it to the Euro 1992 final, which it lost to Denmark. Bulgaria was ranked 29th in FIFA’s rankings, and it had probably the best player in the country’s history in Hristo Stoichkov, who at the time was starring for Barcelona. The Bulgarians lost their first group-stage game before winning back-to-back matches against Greece and Argentina. In this quarterfinal matchup, Germany took the lead through legendary midfielder Lothar Matthäus, who scored a penalty in the 47th minute. Bulgaria came back with a vengeance, though, getting goals from Stoichkov and Yordan Letchkov in the 75th and 78th minutes for the win. Paraguay looked hopeless in its 2026 World Cup opener against the United States, losing 4-1 in convincing fashion. The South American side rebounded, though, with an upset win over Türkiye and then a draw against Australia that got it through to the knockout stage as one of the top eight third-place teams. In the round of 32, Paraguay scored its best chance of the game but otherwise was thoroughly on the back foot against Germany. Paraguay completed 161 passes compared to 719 for Germany. Paraguay was in control of the shootout before its fourth and fifth takers missed. Then, it was Tah who missed for Germany before Jose Canalé sealed the win. Next up for Paraguay: the winner of France vs. Sweden. South Korea, which was coached by Dutchman Guus Hiddink during the 2002 World Cup, won Group D and advanced alongside the United States. The Koreans beat Portugal in group play, and the upsets kept going from there. Against Italy, South Korea trailed after Italian striker Christian Vieri scored in the first half. Seol Ki-hyeon scored in the 88th minute to equalize before Ahn Jung-hwan scored in the 118th minute. Back then, extra time had golden-goal rules, which meant the game ended with that goal. Then, in the quarterfinals, the matchup against Spain ended 0-0 before winger Joaquin missed as the fourth Spanish taker. Korea converted on all five of its attempts to move on. In total, Korea bested three of the top eight teams in the tournament – Portugal was fifth, Italy sixth and Spain eighth. It was a magical run that ended in a semifinal defeat against Germany. Russia shocked the world when it knocked out a European giant when it hosted the World Cup in 2018. The Russians progressed through the group stage with two wins and a loss, which came against Uruguay. Spain, meanwhile, sputtered with a win and two draws. The round-of-16 matchup ended 1-1 after an own goal from Russian defender Sergei Ignashevich gave Spain the lead. Striker Artem Dzyuba tied the game in the 41st minute with a penalty. In the end, goalkeeper Igor Akinfeev was the hero, saving penalties from Koke and Iago Aspas to seal a quarterfinal spot. In that round, Russia went to another penalty shootout but fell short against Croatia, which went on to the final after beating England in the semifinals.Latest Sports News from FOX Sports
A polling place sign at the State Office Building in Juneau on Aug. 15, 2022. (Photo by Lisa Phu/Alaska Beacon)
The Alaska Supreme Court on Monday ordered the Alaska Division of Elections to include Dan J. Sullivan of Petersburg on the primary ballot as a candidate for U.S. Senate.
The ruling upholding a lower court’s decision came just hours after oral arguments in a fast-tracked case ahead of the division’s deadline to certify and print primary election ballots at noon on Tuesday.
The Alaska Supreme Court considered oral arguments in a fast-tracked case appealing a lower court’s ruling Dan J. Sullivan is eligible to run for U.S. Senate on June 29, 2026. (Screenshot of Gavel livestream)
A full opinion on the case will be issued at a later date, the court said.
The decision ends a weekslong saga between the state and the challenger with the same name Republican incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan. The two Sullivans are among 16 primary candidates for the seat, including former Democratic U.S House Rep. Mary Peltola.
The primary election is Aug. 18. The general election in November determines who will hold the seat for a six-year term.
On Friday, an Anchorage Superior Court ruled that the division’s decision to strike Sullivan from the ballot was unlawful. The judge determined that the division did not have the authority to add additional requirements for candidates beyond what is outlined in the U.S. Constitution. He ruled Sullivan, a retired teacher from Petersburg, is eligible to run for U.S. Senate.
The state appealed that ruling, and the case went before the Alaska Supreme Court on Monday.
Reached by phone Monday afternoon, Sullivan of Petersburg expressed relief. “I’m glad it’s over. It was pretty stressful. I’ve got to admit that,” he said.
Dan Sullivan of Petersburg announced his campaign for the U.S. Senate on May 29 to challenge incumbent U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan. (Photo courtesy of Dan Sullivan)
On the criticisms and questions about his campaign, Sullivan said they were “challenging” to hear.
“It’s all because of my name, and you know, there’s nothing I can do about my name,” he said. “I was frustrated, I felt it’s time for a change, and so I wanted to jump into the race and make my feelings and my thoughts known. So there’s not a whole lot more to it than that. They tried to make it more than that, and you know, that’s their prerogative.”
Sullivan said he would agree to be listed as “Dan J. Sullivan” on the ballot. He said he now plans to regroup and make plans to visit Alaskan communities, hear from voters, and continue the campaign for Senate.
Nate Adams, a spokesperson for Sen. Sullivan, said they were disappointed in the court ruling but encouraged by the fact that the division director can “use her expertise” to distinguish the candidates on the ballot in an emailed statement on Monday.
In the decision, the justices wrote the division will determine how the candidates will appear on the ballot.
“This matter is remanded for the Division of Elections to determine, in the first instance, how appellee Sullivan shall be listed as a candidate within the confines of existing Alaska ballot design law,” they wrote.
An official with the Alaska Department of Law on behalf of the division did not immediately respond to a question about how the two candidates would appear on the ballot.
“The State appreciates the court’s quick ruling and will work to implement the order,” said Sam Curtis with the Department of Law.
Alaska Supreme Court hears oral arguments
Sullivan from Petersburg appealed the division’s unprecedented June 15 decision to disqualify him from the U.S. Senate ballot. The Alaska Division of Elections cited complaints filed by the incumbent and Republican groups that his similar name, Republican party affiliation and campaign materials were evidence he was running in “bad faith” and mimicking the Republican incumbent, U.S. Sen. Dan S. Sullivan.
Challenger Dan. J. Sullivan has defended his campaign as authentic and genuine. In court, his attorney argued that he met all the constitutional requirements for candidacy, and the division had unlawfully added a subjective criteria.
In oral arguments before the Alaska Supreme Court on Monday, attorney Chris Murray argued on behalf of the division and its appeal of the lower court’s decision. He argued that the authority to administer the manner of elections includes disqualifying the challenger, as they deemed his intention in filing was to “frustrate the purpose” of the election and confuse voters.
Justices questioned that authority cited by the state. “A lot of the times people run for office for different reasons, to highlight an issue, to see what the process is like, and maybe start garnering support over time,” said Justice Aimee Oravec. “These are not necessarily candidates that are seeking office so much as attention for other reasons that are not necessarily bad faith, and there’s no limiting principle.”
“It seems amorphous, frankly,” said Justice Jennifer Henderson. “A broad, amorphous concept of what a candidate’s intent needs to be. So it seems like it’s very appropriate for us to worry about what is encompassed by that.”
Murray argued that the division has the authority, under current state regulations, and a duty to protect voters from confusion. “Because again, what’s the division trying to do? Protect the right to vote,” he said. “The division’s job is to make sure that people who want to vote for one candidate actually get to vote for that candidate, and their intent is reflected on the ballot.”
Justice Oravec questioned that position when the division has the authority to administer and design the ballot in a way that reduces confusion.
“You control the ballot,” she said. “So I think you’re conflating the potential for confusion when you have the authority to mitigate the confusion.”
State statute already prescribes how candidates with identical names should appear on the ballot. Candidate’s middle initials would be included — in this case “Dan J. Sullivan” for the candidate from Petersburg, and “Dan S. Sullivan” for the incumbent senator.
But in the state’s appeal filed over the weekend, Alaska Acting Attorney General Cori Mills requested that if the court upholds the ruling restoring the Petersburg Sullivan to the ballot, then the division could list him as “nonpartisan” instead of Republican like the incumbent senator.
Justices questioned whether that affiliation would be within the division’s authority. Jeffrey Robinson, arguing on behalf of Sullivan on Monday, objected to that listing. “There’s no authority for the proposition that in order to avoid confusion the director can change the party affiliation,” he said.
Robinson argued that the division adding unwritten, subjective criteria for candidates is unlawful. He again cited the case where the Alaska Democratic Party sought to remove Eric Hafner, a U.S. House candidate imprisoned out of state, and the division did not investigate his motives but found he met the qualifications to run for office.
“When would there be a better time to question the motives of someone’s intent to run for office than a convicted felon living out of state who has no potential to come back, or virtually no potential to come back and serve?” Robinson said.
The division has argued that there was no complaint filed against Hafner’s candidacy, and so no reason to investigate him.
Justice Oravec asked Robinson whether Sullivan and his legal team also dispute the division’s findings in their decision to disqualify him from the ballot. Robinson said the division’s points were “unconstitutional and frivolous” and they did not have the authority to make those findings.
In an unusual move, 14 Republican controlled states filed an amicus brief, or “friends of the court” brief, with the state Supreme Court expressing support for the division and its authority to remove Sullivan from the ballot.
We’re seeing stars, stripes, and major July 4th savings! You can refresh your summer beauty routine, warm weather wardrobe, and even a few pieces around your home with the insanely good July 4th… E! Online (US) – Top Stories
Whenever you’re hosting a barbecue or cookout, it can be tricky to figure out how much food to prepare. Here’s how many hot dogs and burgers you’ll need.
The entrance to the Alaska Gasline Development Corp.’s Anchorage office is seen on Aug. 11, 2023. The state-owned AGDC is pushing for a massive project that would ship natural gas south from the North Slope, liquefy it and send it on tankers from Cook Inlet to Asian markets. The AGDC proposal is among many that have been raised since the 1970s to try commercialize the North Slope’s stranded natural gas. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
A board member with the state-owned Alaska Gasline Development Corporation, which is a part owner of the proposed AKLNG gas line project and pushing for lawmakers to provide a multibillion dollar tax break, likened state legislators to mosquitoes — “irritating, relentless, and somehow always present” — at a board meeting on Thursday.
The “tongue-in-cheek” comparison came from Fairbanks-based secretary and treasurer of the board Dennis Michel as the corporation grapples with lawmaker scrutiny after the leak of a confidential document revealing potential state financial liability in the project.
Some legislators found the comparison to be demeaning as they continue to debate the specifics of a state tax break for the project that is estimated by the developer to cost up to $55 billion, which would include a 807-mile gas line and gas treatment facilities. The comment and some lawmakers’ reaction highlights the tension in the working relationship between the groups.
Lawmakers are now in a second special session called by Gov. Mike Dunleavy. A conference committee of six legislators are negotiating a compromise bill from competing House and Senate proposals.
Lawmakers have been largely supportive of the AKLNG project that would deliver natural gas from the North Slope. But Senate lawmakers and Dunleavy have split on details of the plan. Lawmakers are weighing provisions to provide increased protections for Alaskan gas consumers, a community impact fund, labor-related provisions, disclosure agreements for foreign investors and provisions to protect the state if the project fails to move forward, among others.
The state-owned Alaska Gasline Development Corporation is a 25% owner of the project, while Glenfarne, a private developer, is a 75% owner, after AGDC handed over ownership last year.
The AGDC board includes seven members, including five members appointed by Dunleavy and two commissioners with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities and the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development.
The mosquito-themed remarks came one day after the Alaska Beacon reported on a confidential draft analysis of an agreement between AGDC and Glenfarne that shows if the project failed to move forward under some conditions, the state could be required to pay in order to take back the project.
The document was shared with some lawmakers, but not others or the public, and it informed some Senators in questions to the developer and their push for further protections on the proposed tax break proposal.
At Thursday’s virtual board meeting, officials with AGDC said they had launched an internal investigation into how the confidential document was shared. AGDC President Frank Richards called the disclosure “bad for AGDC” and its relationship with private investors.
On Thursday, AGDC board members expressed strong support for a state approved multibillion dollar tax break to benefit the project, and heard a detailed update on the current negotiations and proposed provisions being debated in the Legislature.
At the end of the nearly two-hour meeting, Michel, the Fairbanks-based board member, made the comments in what seemed like prepared remarks. He prefaced the remarks as “tongue in cheek” before he likened lawmakers to mosquitoes seen in the Interior.
“A mosquito can turn a peaceful evening into a defensive operation. A Legislature can turn a straightforward issue into a long campaign of hearings, amendments, delays and procedural buzzing,” Michel said. “Both are persistent, too. A mosquito can keep circling until it finds bare skin. Lawmakers circle around taxes, amendments, compromises until it finally lands, or at least until someone, everyone in the room, has been bitten by the process.”
Michel said he hoped the legislative conference committee would “stop hovering” and agree to a workable tax cut for the developers.
“So, yes, mosquitoes in the Legislature are both part of life in Alaska, irritating, relentless, and somehow always present just when people are trying to get something done,” he said.
“But even mosquitoes can be a sign of something good ahead,” he added. “More mosquitoes often mean more blueberries here in the Interior. And in the same spirit, I hope that the legislators and their sessions produce more than welts and frustrations, but ultimately deliver something of value to the citizens of Alaska.”
No other board members responded to the comments, and the meeting ended shortly after.
Several lawmakers were on the call, including Sen. Cathy Giessel, R-Anchorage, who chairs the Senate Resources Committee. She has been highly involved in drafting legislation around the AKLNG project and serves as a non-voting senate representative to the board.
She called the comments “outrageously demeaning.”
Senate President Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak, Sens. Cathy Giessel, R-Anchorage, and Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage are seen at a news conference after the Senate adjourned on May 20, 2026. (Photo by Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)
“He is an unelected person who has been appointed as a political favor to a board with no oversight by any elected individuals in the Legislature, and he was demeaning representatives of the people who have been elected,” Giessel said in an interview on Friday.
“(The comments) demonstrate to me the cavalier attitude that this board has toward the governing body of the Legislature, the one of the branches of government, and that concerns me a great deal,” she said. “This is a generational change project and we need to be working together.”
Rep. Donna Mears, D-Anchorage, who serves on the House Resources Committee also attended the hearing. She said the comments were “not acceptable.”
“The Legislature has got a duty that is larger than the AGDC board. We have a responsibility to our communities, we have a responsibility to rate payers. Yes, this project can bring a lot of benefit to the state, but we also have to make sure that we’re not running over our communities and our ratepayers in the process,” she said in an interview Friday.
During a break in the conference committee hearing, AGDC president Richards said in an interview he did not want to speak for Michel. “He was trying to identify that as tongue in cheek,” Richards said. “And really I think maybe expressing some frustration about the lengthy process, and about what’s been happening, the back and forth.”
Frank Richards, president of the Alaska Galine Development Corp., listens to a question at a House Finance hearing held in Anchorage on May 27, 2026.. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
“There’s this, sounds like tension, you know, that in the arena of the legislature that we want to be able to get through and achieve an economic project,” he added. “And that’s really the goal of what we’re going to do with the property tax, alternative volumetric tax provisions.”
When asked about lawmakers’ reaction, Richards said he did not have a comment, but added: “I certainly can see the perspective of hearing the words that were said and their personal reaction.”
Both Giessel and Mears noted ongoing concerns about a lack of transparency from AGDC and Glenfarne on the proposed gas line project, amplified by the reporting on the confidential draft agreement this week.
Lawmakers have been asking Glenfarne and AGDC for more detailed financial information for months. Glenfarne released an updated estimate for the project’s cost earlier this month at up to $55 billion, but state lawmakers say they still don’t have all the financial information they’ve been seeking, including estimates about the project’s profitability.
Giessel said she’s particularly concerned about confidential agreements with foreign investors. She authored provisions approved by the Senate to provide more state oversight of foreign entities and cost overruns.
“I think there’s been such distrust sown in this project that I don’t see how we can proceed forward at this point,” Giessel said. “It almost feels like there needs to be a restart where everybody comes to the table and stops hiding the ball, stops hiding the information, and the disrespect and demeaning language stops, and we start over with mutual respect and mutual collaboration.”
Mears said the legislators with the conference committee currently working on a final bill have an “enormous burden” to hammer out a compromise. She said if lawmakers still need more information, they should get more time to do their work.
“I think the information coming out this week is exactly why rushing a process is unacceptable,” she said, referring to the information in the confidential draft analysis.
“Maybe the thought that the Legislature is annoying is true,” Mears said. “Because the truth sure seems to be inconvenient. We would have a much better process starting from what we know now, and those of us that have been asking for more information for months are not wrong.”
Members of the conference committee are scheduled to meet publicly on Friday and Saturday. The Legislature is scheduled to reconvene on Wednesday July 1, but it’s uncertain whether a compromise bill will be finalized by then.
Greg Lange of Bismarck, North Dakota, drops off his absentee ballot and his wife’s at the Bismarck Burleigh County Office Building on June 8, 2026. (Photo by Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor)
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can count mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, a blow to the Trump administration and some Republican states that had urged the justices to require all ballots to arrive by the close of polls.
In a 5-4 decision, the court found that federal law does not prevent states from accepting late-arriving ballots. The ruling is a victory for Democrats and voting rights advocates, who had said setting a hard, Election Day deadline for ballot arrival would risk disenfranchising voters amid fears of deteriorating mail service.
The case, RNC vs. Watson, centered on whether federal law overrides a Mississippi law that requires mail-in ballots postmarked on or before Election Day to be counted as long as they arrive within five business days of the election. Thirteen states have similar laws, which extend a “grace period” to ballots that arrive through the mail after polls close.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, said that federal law didn’t preempt the state law because elections represent when voters make a decision, which must be done on or before Election Day. Voters who cast their ballot by mail have made a decision by Election Day, Barrett reasoned.
“The electorate’s choice is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received,” Barrett wrote.
Barrett cautioned that the decision rested on the interpretation of federal law, not the U.S. Constitution. She noted that the court was not considering the scope of Congress’ authority to regulate federal elections — suggesting that if Congress passes a nationwide ballot arrival deadline that the justices might uphold such a law.
Barrett was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined part of the dissent.
“If ballots received after election day are added to the set of ballots that dictate the election’s outcome, the electorate’s choice does not occur on election day, and the federal election-day statutes are violated,” Alito wrote.
States with grace periods
In addition to Mississippi, other states with some form of grace period include Alaska, California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia.
David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, called the Supreme Court decision a win for these states, as well as 30 states that accept military and overseas ballots delivered after Election Day.
“This is a victory for all the states and for all those who respect the will of the Founders, who ensured the security of our elections by giving the power to run those elections to the states — not to one person sitting in Washington, DC,” Becker said in a statement.
Some local election officials had warned that requiring all ballots to be received by the close of polls would burden their offices as they try to quickly warn voters about the change just months before the midterms. More ballot drop boxes that let voters keep their ballots out of the mail could help, they say, but also cost money.
“Ultimately, the voters may be harmed as well,” election officials in California, Massachusetts, Oregon and Washington wrote in a court brief, warning that some ballots may not be received in time, “despite best efforts by careful and proactive administrators and local governments.”
But some Republican secretaries of state had urged the justices to strike down “grace period” laws. Louisiana Secretary of State Nancy Landry and Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray wrote in a court brief that an Election Day deadline “provides the bright-line rule that effective election administration demands.”
At least 725,000 ballots were postmarked by Election Day 2024 and arrived within a legally accepted post-election window, The New York Times has reported, citing election officials in 14 of 22 states and territories where late-arriving ballots were accepted that year.
Overall, about 30% of voters cast a mail ballot in 2024, according to data gathered by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
RNC challenged law
The Republican National Committee challenged the Mississippi law, which was defended by Mississippi Republican Secretary of State Michael Watson. The RNC argued a longstanding federal law that sets the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as Election Day for federal offices preempted state laws that allow ballots cast by Election Day, but received later, to count.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in October 2024 that federal law requires ballots to be received by Election Day. President Donald Trump last year also unilaterally attempted to require mail ballots to be received by the end of Election Day in a sweeping executive order on elections. Much of that order was blocked in federal court.
The Supreme Court “rejected the RNC’s radical attempt to rewrite election laws in a way that would have resulted in the rejection of hundreds of thousands of ballots and the disenfranchisement of voters nationwide through no fault of their own,” Elisabeth Frost, litigation chair at Elias Law Group, said in a statement.
Elias Law Group represented two nonprofit voting rights groups, Vet Voice Foundation and the Mississippi Alliance for Retired Americans, that had intervened as defendants in the case.
The Supreme Court issued Monday’s decision against a backdrop of uncertainty surrounding mail ballots. Trump signed an executive order in March that would restrict voting by mail by requiring states to provide lists of possible mail ballot voters to the U.S. Postal Service in advance. A federal judge recently blocked major portions of the order, triggering a near-certain appeal.
Republican National Committee chairman Joe Gruters accused Democrats of inviting chaos by allowing elections to “drag on” for days and weeks after ballots are cast. He said Republicans wouldn’t be deterred by the decision.
“If we want fair and secure elections, Election Day should mean exactly what it says, which is why this decision makes it even more imperative that Congress pass the SAVE America Act,” Gruters said in a statement, referring to restrictive voter legislation pushed by Trump that lacks the votes to pass the U.S. Senate.
Trump said the decision was a “tremendous loss” in a social media post and again urged passage of the SAVE America Act.
Paul Clement, an attorney for the Republican National Committee, said during oral arguments at the Supreme Court in March the prospect that the outcome of an election could change because of ballots arriving after Election Day would be unacceptable to losing candidates. After the 2020 election, President Donald Trump demanded election officials not count ballots that came in after Election Day, but states kept counting ballots.
“If you have an election and the election is going to turn on late-arriving ballots in a way that means what everybody kind of thought was the result on Election Day ends up being the opposite a week later, 21 days later, the losers are not going to accept that result. Full stop,” Clement told the justices.
Attorneys for Watson argued that both legal and historical precedent supported his position. States may decide that voters have made their final choices when ballots are submitted to state officials rather than when they’re received, according to Watson.
Watson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
We’re seeing stars, stripes, and major July 4th savings! You can refresh your summer beauty routine, warm weather wardrobe, and even a few pieces around your home with the insanely good July 4th…
