U.S. first lady Melania Trump enters the East Room with a humanoid robot during the Fostering the Future Together Global Coalition Summit at the White House. (Heather Diehl/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — First lady Melania Trump was joined by a special guest at the White House on Wednesday: a walking, talking humanoid robot.
Named “Figure 03,” the shiny black and white robot strolled side by side with Mrs. Trump into the East Room for the second day of her international technology summit, where she is hosting spouses of leaders from 45 nations and representatives from 28 tech companies.
The robot, developed by the company Figure, welcomed guests in multiple languages and offered a wave.
“I’m Figure 03, a humanoid built in the United States of America,” it said. “I am grateful to be part of this historic movement to empower children with technology and education.”
The robot then turned and walked back down a White House corridor out of the room.
“It’s fair to state, you are my first American-made humanoid guest in the White House,” the first lady quipped after its exit.
The first lady launched her “Fostering the Future Together” initiative in September at the United Nations General Assembly.
She and other first spouses, like France’s first lady Brigitte Macron, spoke on Wednesday about the importance of balancing the use of tech with safety and the need for initiatives to equip young people with practical skills.
“Our mission to empower children through technology and education is achievable. I encourage each of you to take a proactive step after this inaugural summit. Pledge to host a regional meeting. Collaborate with the private sector. Unlock access to tech for those who require assistance, draft groundbreaking legislation to protect our children,” Mrs. Trump said. “Collaborate with another member nation. Form a committee and be a catalyst for discovery.”
“Indeed, our world is transforming, and through the use of AI, we can now access centuries worth of human humanities knowledge base. The future of AI is personified. It will be formed in the shape of humans,” she added.
The first lady kicked off the inaugural meeting of first spouses and dignitaries on Tuesday with remarks delivered at the State Department. A working session followed focused on the topics of artificial intelligence, education technology, digital literacy and skills, and safety and protection online.
Olena Zelenska, the first lady of Ukraine, and Sara Netanyahu, wife of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, are among the first spouses present.
Zelenska said she was joining Mrs. Trump’s initiative as a reliable partner, and spoke about Ukraine’s investment in digital infrastructure, education technologies and AI-enabled learning.
“For us, this is the matter of principle. No child, no adult, should lose access to education regardless of their circumstances. That is why we’re building a comprehensive digital education ecosystem,” Zelenska said.
U.S. Supreme Court building on Wednesday, March 18, 2026. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that internet service providers cannot be held liable for illegal downloads of copyrighted material like music, movies, and TV shows simply because some of their customers are known to engage in piracy.
The unanimous decision reversed a $1.5 billion damages award to Sony Music Entertainment in a suit against Cox Communications, the third largest broadband provider in the U.S., in a setback for the entertainment industry’s efforts to crack down on rampant, illicit distribution of copyrighted material online.
“Cox provided Internet service to its subscribers, but it did not intend for that service to be used to commit copyright infringement,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in the court’s opinion. “Holding Cox liable merely for failing to terminate Internet service to infringing accounts would expand secondary copyright liability beyond our precedents.”
Copyright owners had insisted that the risk of being sued creates an incentive for internet service providers to help root out online piracy and suspend the accounts of those suspected of dealing in protected material.
The victory for Cox effectively blunts entertainment industry efforts to root out online piracy by leveraging service providers. It had warned that a contrary ruling could have forced them into bankruptcy and potentially eliminated internet access entirely in some communities.
Federal law makes it a crime to directly infringe on a copyright, but secondary liability by another party involved in copyright infringement — such as internet service providers — remains an evolving area of law.
As a general rule, anyone who “materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another may be held liable as a contributory infringer,” lawyers for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), an entertainment industry trade group, argued in a brief to the high court.
Thomas said the court rejects that view.
“The provider of a service is contributorily liable for the user’s infringement only if it intended that the provided service be used for infringement,” he wrote. “The intent required for contributory liability can be shown only if the party induced the infringement or the provided service is tailored to that infringement.”
Nearly 19 billion downloads of pirated movies and TV shows were made using online peer-to-peer software in 2023, according to the MPAA. The copyright violations cost the U.S. economy more than $29 billion and “hundreds of thousands of jobs,” the group estimates.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred in the judgment of the court but said they would not have imposed as stringent limits on liability.
“Instead of artificially limiting secondary liability, the Court should have examined whether some other rule of fault-based liability derived from the common law might hold Cox liable for copyright infringement committed on its network,” Sotomayor wrote.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters and members of the media at Mar-a-Lago on February 1, 2026 in Palm Beach, Florida.(Photo by Al Drago/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Democrat Emily Gregory won the Florida House District 87 special election, according to The Associated Press, flipping the district that includes President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.
In the Tuesday evening upset victory, Gregory was reported to have defeated Trump-endorsed Republican Jon Maples by about 2.4 percentage points, according to the AP.
The Democrat’s victory came after the president, who had endorsed Maples, himself cast a mail-in ballot, according to public records, despite his years-long criticism of voting by mail.
He turned to his social media platform on Monday to encourage voters to support Maples, calling the statehouse race a “very important” special election and emphasizing its location in Palm Beach County, where he spends much of his winter and just visited this past weekend.
“Jon is a very successful Businessman and Civic Leader, who is known and loved, and also endorsed by so many of my Palm Beach County friends,” the president added.
Democrats were celebrating the flip as a major accomplishment leading into the midterms, while also touting the symbolic significance of a victory on the president’s home turf.
“Mar-a-Lago just flipped red to blue, which should have Republicans sweating the midterms,” Heather Williams, president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, said in a statement. “A Trump +11 district in his own backyard shouldn’t be in play for Democrats, but tonight proves Republicans are vulnerable everywhere.”
Williams also projected a positive outlook heading into the midterms, saying “If Mar-a-Lago is vulnerable, imagine what’s possible this November.”
“This victory reiterates an undeniable trend in Florida: with year round organizing and infrastructure investment, Democrats can run and win anywhere–including Donald Trump’s backyard,” Florida Democratic Party Chair Nikki Fried said in a statement.
Gregory, who is a small business owner and public health professional, told MS Now on Tuesday night that she still felt “pretty shocked” by the victory and that she didn’t think “much” about the president being one of her constituents.
Trump is “one of 115,000 registered voters in district 87,” she said. “My opponent made, you know, him forefront in his campaign. And I focused more on the voters in district 87, you know, what everybody needs. What all of us will do better with … lower property insurance, with expanded healthcare, and with strong public schools.”
The Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., March 18, 2026. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court appears poised to allow President Trump to turn away asylum seekers who approach ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border, a decision which would reverse a lower court ruling that the policy likely violates federal law and international treaties.
A majority of the court’s conservative justices signaled during oral arguments in the case Tuesday that the administration should have broad leeway over border control and that asylum seekers who have not yet stepped foot on U.S. soil probably do not have a legal right to file a claim seeking protection.
“Do you think someone who comes to the front door of a house and knocks at the door has arrived ‘in’ the house?” Justice Samuel Alito asked. “The person may have arrived ‘at’ the house.”
Immigrant advocates insist the Immigration and Nationality Act, which says a noncitizen who “arrives in the U.S. … at a designated port of arrival” must be allowed to apply for asylum, includes those who have “reached the threshold” of America.
“If an immigration officer determines that an alien who is arriving in the United States has expressed a fear of future persecution, then the immigration officer shall refer them for a credible fear interview,” argued Kelsi Corkran, an attorney supporting asylum seekers.
From the start of his second term, Trump has effectively blocked the entry of all noncitizens at the southern border, including those seeking to apply for refuge from credible fears of violence and persecution.
“You can’t ‘arrive in’ the U.S. while you’re still standing in Mexico,” argued Assistant Solicitor General Vivek Suri. “It is entirely lawful for the executive branch to prevent aliens from reaching U.S. soil and claiming those protections.”
The dispute largely turns on competing interpretations of what it means to “arrive in” the country.
“How close do you have to be to the border?” asked Justice Amy Coney Barrett. “If it’s not crossing the physical border, what is the magic thing or the dispositive thing that we’re looking for where we say, ah, now that person we can say arrives in the United States?”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that regardless of where the line is drawn, the law stipulates that the government can prevent people from filing an asylum claim if it wants to. “The government’s presumably going to stop you on the other side of that line and prevent you from getting to wherever the line is. Right?” he asked.
The court’s three liberal justices were critical of the Trump administration’s interpretation of the law.
“Imagine a polite asylum seeker who wants to do everything by the book,” posited Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “He approaches the border but does not cross, precisely because the law says you are not supposed to enter the U.S. without authority. Why on earth would Congress have intended or meant for his asylum request to be discarded, not taken seriously, not entertained, but someone who manages to enter the U.S. unlawfully…and requests asylum gets their application entertained? “
“That doesn’t seem to me to make any sense,” Jackson added.
At the heart of the case is the so-called “turn back” policy from Trump’s first term that kept asylum seekers waiting in Mexico as a method of “metering” access at border crossings that faced overcrowding. Border officials contend it was a temporary policy, imposed only when conditions required.
While the administration voluntarily discontinued the practice in 2021 after a lower court deemed it unlawful, the government now wants the justices to approve the ability to reinstate the policy if necessary. Trump has invoked alternate legal authorities to support his current border crackdown.
Melissa Crow, director of litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, an immigrant rights group representing several asylum-seeker plaintiffs, said a ruling for the administration could have a major impact, even if not immediate.
“We have no doubt the administration is seeking a decision that will give them even more leeway to restrict the rights of people seeking asylum,” Crow said.
Tens of thousands of asylum seekers who arrived at the U.S. southern border during Trump’s first term were forced to remain in Mexico for weeks or months in sometimes harrowing conditions in hopes they might have a chance to be interviewed about their fears of persecution.
Nicole Ramos, border rights project director at Al Otro Lado, an immigrant rights group and plaintiff in the case, says Congress had a more nuanced view when it drafted the law following the U.S. failure to accept Jewish refugees from the Holocaust.
“The right to seek asylum at the border is a legal right and a moral right,” Ramos said. “The stakes are not theoretical. They are measured in lives.”
One of those lives was Benito, a Mexican asylum seeker who declined to give his last name to protect his identity and spoke through a translator at an event hosted by Al Otro Lado.
“I was partially tortured, had a lot of lesions, and emotional harm, and traumas and I’m still healing from that,” he said of the violence he was trying to escape. “I knew I could apply for asylum in that moment, on the side of Mexico, and so I did everything correctly. I came close; I told the [U.S.] immigration agents that I needed to apply for asylum because I was scared and thought I would be killed.
“I had scars on my body, on my face, and my head,” he said, “but they said to me that they couldn’t help me, couldn’t accept me.”
The court is expected to issue a decision on the Trump administration’s bid to resurrect the “metering” and “turn back” policy by the end of June.
Paratroopers assigned to 2nd Battalion, 82nd Airborne Division conduct live fire exercises at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, July 28, 2025. (Spc Jayreliz Batista Prado/US Army, File)
(WASHINGTON) — Elements of the 82nd Airborne Division are poised to deploy to the Middle East, amid the U.S. and Israel’s war with Iran, according to a source familiar with the situation.
The deployment is set to include both a headquarters unit and ground combat forces. A headquarters company, around 250 personnel, would handle logistics, coordination and operational planning for the deployment.
One brigade — about 3,000 soldiers — of the 82nd is constantly on standby as the Immediate Response Force, tasked to be able to deploy anywhere in the world within 18 hours.
It remains unclear how many combat troops would ultimately be mobilized — or what role they would play in a potential conflict with Iran. Any move to introduce U.S. ground forces would mark a significant escalation, opening the door to a far broader and more complex phase of the war.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that the U.S. has effectively won the war and that Iran’s military is nearly annihilated. But strikes against U.S. troops in neighboring countries has continued. So far, 13 U.S. troops have been killed in action and at least 290 have been wounded.
“I don’t like to say this. We’ve won this — this war has been won,” Trump told reporters Tuesday.
So far, 13 U.S. troops have been killed in action and at least 290 have been wounded.
The 82nd Airborne Division is the Pentagon’s premier ground force, designed to deploy on short notice anywhere in the world and trained in parachute assaults to quickly seize contested terrain — though that doesn’t mean that’s how they could be deployed into the Middle East.
Signs of a potential deployment have been building for weeks. Earlier this month, the same 82nd Airborne headquarters unit was suddenly pulled from a significant training event at Fort Polk, Louisiana, three U.S. officials told ABC News, fueling speculation the division was being prepared to deploy to the Middle East.
The 82nd, which is based out of Fort Bragg, North Carolina, could join the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) as potential ground forces swell into the region. A MEU is a 2,200-troop force which is expected to arrive in the Middle East this week.
Experts say the MEU would likely be used to conduct raids across the Iranian shoreline to gain a foothold in areas around the crucial Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world’s oil flows by ship.
And three Navy ships carrying 2,200 Marines left San Diego last week for a previously scheduled deployment to the Indo-Pacific, but two U.S. officials tell ABC News their ultimate destination is likely the Middle East.
The 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit is aboard the USS Boxer, the USS Comstock and the USS Portland — along with 2,000 sailors.
.S. President Donald Trump (L) speaks as newly sworn in U.S. Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin and his wife Christie Mullin look on during a ceremony in the Oval Office at the White House on March 24, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Strikes continued across the Middle East on Tuesday amid uncertainty over the state of talks between the U.S. and Iran, after President Donald Trump touted progress on negotiations while Tehran denied any dialogue.
Just days after he insisted there was no leadership left to talk to in Iran, Trump on Monday announced the U.S. and Iran held discussions over the weekend and as a result he was postponing major attacks he’d threatened on Tehran’s energy infrastructure.
“We have had very, very strong talks,” Trump told reporters. “We’ll see where they lead. But we have … major points of agreement.”
Steve Witkoff, White House special envoy, and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, led the talks for the U.S. side, according to Trump. Trump did not identify who the U.S. was negotiating with in Iran, but said it is not the new supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei.
Trump said a meeting would take place “soon.”
Iran, on the other hand, publicly denied any talks have taken place. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s speaker of Parliament, said Trump’s claims were an attempt to influence markets suffering from Iran’s stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz.
The Trump administration is not confirming if and when in-person talks will take place between U.S. and Iranian officials in the coming days.
“These are sensitive diplomatic discussions, and the United States will not negotiate through the press. This is a fluid situation, and speculation about meetings should not be deemed as final until they are formally announced by the White House,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement provided to ABC News.
Pakistan has positioned itself as a mediator between the U.S. and Iran.
A Pakistani official familiar with the negotiations told ABC News that there are “several proposals” floating around regarding the next steps for talks and said an in-person meeting in Islamabad is on the table.
Trump on Tuesday shared to his social media platform a post from Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who wrote on X: “Pakistan welcomes and fully supports ongoing efforts to pursue dialogue to end the WAR in the Middle East, in the interest of peace and stability in region and beyond.”
“Subject to concurrence by US and Iran, Pakistan stands ready and honoured to be the host to facilitate meaningful and conclusive talks for a comprehensive settlement of the ongoing conflict,” Sharif’s post read.
The Pakistani official said Turkey and Egypt are also helping to facilitate the talks between the U.S. and Iran.
The official said the talks would likely take place within the next five days in accordance with Trump’s social media post — suggesting military strikes on Iranian power plants were “paused” for the next five days as Tehran and Washington engage in diplomatic negotiations. The official cautioned nothing is final as of yet.
A spokesperson for the Embassy of Pakistan in Washington declined to comment. The Egypt and Turkish embassies have not responded to requests for comment.
The Turkish foreign minister said last Thursday that his country was talking to both the U.S. and Iran to understand where the two nations stand.
The State Department referred to the White House when asked if Witkoff, Kushner and Vice President JD Vance were expected to travel to Islamabad later this week to meet with Iranian officials, as Reuters has reported. Vance’s office has not responded to a request for comment.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday said he had spoken with Trump, and said Trump believes there “is an opportunity to leverage the tremendous achievements we have attained with the U.S. military to realize the war’s objectives in an agreement — an agreement that will safeguard our vital interests.”
In the meantime, Netanyahu said Israel will “continue to strike both in Iran and in Lebanon. We are crushing the missile program and the nuclear program, and continue to inflict severe blows on Hezbollah.”
President Trump earlier Monday said that Israel would be “very happy” when asked if he believed Israel would abide by a negotiated peace deal.
Meanwhile, thousands more U.S. Marines and several Navy ships are heading to the Middle East, and the Pentagon is seeking $200 billion in supplemental funding.
The U.S. Capitol is seen on March 16, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Senators on both sides of the aisle as well as the White House seem to be increasingly optimistic that a deal to fund the Department of Homeland Security is on the horizon — as Transportation Security Administration lines grow at airports and lawmakers feel the pressure.
Republican Sen. Katie Britt, a key negotiator for the GOP, told reporters Monday evening that there was a solution on DHS funding. Her comments came after she and other GOP negotiators — Sens. Markwayne Mullin (who was later confirmed to be the DHS secretary), Lindsey Graham, Bernie Moreno and Steve Daines — met with President Donald Trump at the White House Monday.
The atmosphere on Capitol Hill appears ripe for a DHS funding deal — as the partial shutdown of the department stretches into its 39th day.
Some Senate Republicans are beginning to coalesce around a proposal to fund every agency inside DHS — except immigration enforcement and removal operations. Components of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, like Homeland Security Investigations, which handles things like human smuggling investigations, could still be funded.
Some Republicans have pushed for tackling immigration funding in separate legislation down the road — potentially in another reconciliation bill, which only requires a simple majority to pass.
“Conversations are ongoing but this deal seems to be acceptable,” a White House official said Tuesday.
As the partial shutdown drags on, ICE has money to continue its operations, following a $75 billion cash infusion over five years in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” that Trump signed into law last summer. ICE agents continue to be paid, while their other DHS colleagues are not.
Democrats — who are blocking DHS funding and demanding ICE reforms following the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal law enforcement in Minneapolis — still haven’t publicly agreed to anything, although they’ve been open to this piecemeal funding approach for weeks.
Democratic senators on Monday expressed sentiments that talks were trending in a positive direction.
“Democrats and Republicans have been trying to come to some negotiation, and I’m hearing that there is a potential solution,” Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock said.
It’s not yet clear how an emerging deal factors in Trump’s demand over the weekend that Republican not make a deal with Democrats on DHS funding without also passing his voting and gender-affirming care legislation, the SAVE America Act.
The legislation would restrict mail-in ballots, require photo ID at polling places and mandate that states obtain proof of citizenship before registering a person to vote in a federal election. Trump has tacked additional provisions onto the list of things he would like to see in the law: banning transgender women from playing in women’s sports and gender-affirming surgeries for minors.
SAVE America Act provisions could also be included in a future reconciliation bill, although nothing is set in stone, and the legislation may not meet strict budget rules to be included in a reconciliation package.
Pressure on lawmakers is mounting as lines grow at airports across the country and tens of thousands of workers, including TSA officers, go without pay. Senators continue to get paid.
ICE agents sent by Trump are now stationed at more than a dozen airports across the nation to assume some of the duties of TSA officers affected by the partial shutdown.
While these recent developments mark the most progress on a DHS funding deal in weeks, it’s still a long way from a done deal. Even if the Senate agrees on a deal and passes it, it would still need to go back to the House.
ABC News’ Michelle Stoddart contributed to this report.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters before boarding Air Force One at Palm Beach International Airport on March 23, 2026 in West Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo by Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Public records show that President Donald Trump voted by mail in the special election occurring Tuesday for the statehouse district that includes his Mar-a-Lago estate in spite of his longstanding rhetoric against voting by mail and his efforts to push through the SAVE America Act, which includes restrictions on mail-in voting.
According to public records available on the Palm Beach County elections website, Trump voted by mail ballot in the special election for Florida’s 87th House district.
Trump has spoken critically about voting by mail for years. As recently as Monday, during remarks in Memphis, Tennessee, the president said that “mail-in voting means mail-in cheating — I call it mail-in cheating — and we got to do something about it all.”
A White House spokesperson, in response to a request for comment, said that Trump has supported “commonsense exceptions” to allow Americans to use mail-in ballots, including for “illness, disability, military, or travel,” but that he opposes universal voting by mail due to it being “highly susceptible to fraud.”
An analysis from the Brookings Institution from November 2025 found that voter fraud is rare in voting by mail.
“As everyone knows, the President is a resident of Palm Beach and participates in Florida elections, but he obviously primarily lives at the White House in Washington, D.C.,” spokesperson Olivia Wales wrote in a statement.
Trump frequently visits his Mar-a-Lago estate and was there as recently as Monday morning.
The SAVE America Act, promoted by Trump, would place some new requirements and restrictions on voting by mail.
Florida’s 87th House district special election was scheduled after Mike Caruso, who previously represented the district, was appointed to a county role. Democrats have been eyeing the district as one they could potentially flip, with an eye toward the irony of flipping the president’s home district. Trump and Republicans, meanwhile, have been promoting Republican candidate Jon Maples in an effort to keep the seat in GOP hands.
This is not the first time Trump has voted by mail while president. He voted by mail in the 2020 Florida presidential primary — after he switched his formal place of residence from New York to Florida in September 2019.
Other presidents have voted in elections in their home states while in office. Then-President Joe Biden, for instance, flew to Delaware to vote in the 2022 primaries.
ABC News’ Michelle Stoddart contributed to this report.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters before boarding Air Force One at Palm Beach International Airport on March 23, 2026 in West Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo by Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Public records show that President Donald Trump voted by mail in the special election occurring Tuesday for the statehouse district that includes his Mar-a-Lago estate in spite of his longstanding rhetoric against voting by mail and his efforts to push through the SAVE America Act, which includes restrictions on mail-in voting.
According to public records available on the Palm Beach County elections website, Trump voted by mail ballot in the special election for Florida’s 87th House district.
Trump has spoken critically about voting by mail for years. As recently as Monday, during remarks in Memphis, Tennessee, the president said that “mail-in voting means mail-in cheating — I call it mail-in cheating — and we got to do something about it all.”
A White House spokesperson, in response to a request for comment, said that Trump has supported “commonsense exceptions” to allow Americans to use mail-in ballots, including for “illness, disability, military, or travel,” but that he opposes universal voting by mail due to it being “highly susceptible to fraud.”
An analysis from the Brookings Institution from November 2025 found that voter fraud is rare in voting by mail.
“As everyone knows, the President is a resident of Palm Beach and participates in Florida elections, but he obviously primarily lives at the White House in Washington, D.C.,” spokesperson Olivia Wales wrote in a statement.
Trump frequently visits his Mar-a-Lago estate and was there as recently as Monday morning.
The SAVE America Act, promoted by Trump, would place some new requirements and restrictions on voting by mail.
Florida’s 87th House district special election was scheduled after Mike Caruso, who previously represented the district, was appointed to a county role. Democrats have been eyeing the district as one they could potentially flip, with an eye toward the irony of flipping the president’s home district. Trump and Republicans, meanwhile, have been promoting Republican candidate Jon Maples in an effort to keep the seat in GOP hands.
This is not the first time Trump has voted by mail while president. He voted by mail in the 2020 Florida presidential primary — after he switched his formal place of residence from New York to Florida in September 2019.
Other presidents have voted in elections in their home states while in office. Then-President Joe Biden, for instance, flew to Delaware to vote in the 2022 primaries.
ABC News’ Michelle Stoddart contributed to this report.
A mail-in ballot issued by Hudson County, New Jersey, for the 2024 U.S. general election is seen on September 22, 2024, in Hoboken, New Jersey. (Gary Hershorn/ABC News)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Monday appeared sympathetic to arguments by the Republican National Committee seeking to limit the counting of mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, even if they were postmarked on or before.
Many justices voiced concerns about a Mississippi law being challenged by the RNC for allowing tabulation of absentee ballots that arrive as late as five days after polls close. “Both sides agree there needs to be a final decision by the voter and receipt [of the ballot] — by somebody — by Election Day,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch. “I think the disagreement is receipt by whom.”
For more than a century, Congress has established the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the day for election of members of the House, Senate, and presidential electors, in specified years.
Republicans argue that the term “election” means both “ballot submission and receipt” by state election officials. Mississippi and several voter advocacy groups defending the state law insist “election” means when voters make their “choice” by marking and submitting their ballots to a mailbox, drop box, or polling place.
“I think if you were looking at the text in isolation — day for the election — your first instinct might be in-person voting on that day, is what that text literally meant,” posited Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who sounded skeptical of the state law.
Thirty states plus D.C. have measures providing a grace period for voters, including military service members overseas, who rely on the Postal Service or other commercial letter carriers, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Justice Samuel Alito suggested that allowing each state to set its own policy for late -arriving ballots has created challenges for administering a national election. “We don’t have Election Day anymore. We have election month or we have election months,” he said, skeptically.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised the potentially thorny prospect of states allowing voters to recall — or, change — their ballots once mailed. “Would that be illegal?” she asked Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart. He said he was unaware of any instance of that happening.
The court’s three liberal justices were largely united in support of states’ ability to develop their own voting guidelines, pushing back on claims by lawyers for the RNC and Trump administration, which has advocated for “getting rid of mail-in ballots” altogether.
“The Constitution vests the issue of elections in states, unless superseded by Congress,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “If there is a policy he people who should decide this issue is not the courts.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that, despite decades of precedent of states counting some timely-cast but late-arriving ballots, Congress has never sought to override the laws. “The idea of votes being cast and counted after an election is not new,” she said.
Justice Elena Kagan warned that the Republicans’ rationale for eliminating some mail-in ballots could also implicate early voting. “How are you not taking issue with early voting?” she asked RNC attorney Paul Clement. “You say casting and receipt [of ballots] has to be on Election Day.”
“These things have to be consummated by Election Day,” Clement replied.
“Once we go down this road,” said Kagan, “where are we going to end up?”
Most Americans, 58%, support allowing any voter to cast a ballot by mail, according to a Pew Research Center survey late last year. But there is sharp division among parties, with 83% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters favoring mail-voting with 68% of Republicans and Republican-leaning voters opposed.
In March 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that attempted to cut federal election funding to states that have mail ballot receipt grace periods, but it has largely been blocked by federal courts for now.
Trump has also been pushing Republicans in Congress to approve the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act, which would — in part — outlaw voting by mail for anyone without a legitimate excuse, such as military service, illness, or disability, making it impossible to vote in person.
In a nod to Trump and fraud concerns raised by many conservatives, Justice Kavanaugh suggested late-arriving ballots might “open up a risk of what might destabilize election results” — namely, a swing in election outcome as tardy votes are tabulated.
“Is that a real concern?” Kavanaugh asked Stewart. “Does that factor into how we think about how to resolve the scant text and the maybe conflicting or 21 evolving history here?”
“I certainly respect the perception,” replied Stewart, a Republican. “I think one thing notable in this case and I think helpful is that there has not been much of a showing about actual fraud from post-Election Day ballot receipt itself.”
Hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots in the 2024 general election arrived after Election Day but were still legally counted that year across 22 states and territories with a post-election grace period, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commssion.
Data on which party benefitted more from those ballots is not clear, neither is the impact of any possible changes to mail ballot rules following a Court decision.
Voting rights advocates warn that an abrupt change in policy could lead to widespread rejection of ballots that were properly cast by well-intended voters but experienced unintended delivery delays by the Postal Service or other circumstances.
Republicans insist there is ample time to educate the public on timely submission of mail-in ballots ahead of the November vote and that limiting late-arriving ballots could bolster election integrity.
A decision from the high court is expected by the end of June.
