How the Supreme Court shaped the midterm elections

The Supreme Court may not be on the ballot next week, but its rulings over the past year have shaped the midterm elections in significant ways, from determining the maps used for congressional elections to how campaign cash may be used.Republicans are aiming to stave off losses to Democrats, who are favored to flip the House and the Senate, along with projected losses in other statewide races across the country. The high court’s October 2025 term, which ended on June 30, included three major rulings that had effects on the midterm elections, while the Supreme Court’s emergency docket has featured several additional interim rulings that shaped how both campaigns and elections were conducted this cycle.The Supreme Court’s April ruling in Louisiana v. Callais opened up the floodgates to last-minute redistricting in several Southern states, including Louisiana, by raising the standard required to show when the Voting Rights Act actually requires race-based line-drawing. Justice Samuel Alito’s 6-3 majority ruling found Louisiana’s intentional creation of a second black-majority district was unconstitutional. He said states that have been forced by courts or litigation threats to draw districts based on race would now have significantly more freedom to redraw those maps without prioritizing racial outcomes.The ruling set off a wave of redistricting throughout the South, with four states redrawing their maps immediately after the Callais ruling. Louisiana redrew its map to remove one of the two black-majority congressional districts, likely netting the GOP a House seat. Alabama similarly redrew its map to remove one of its two black-majority congressional districts to net the GOP a likely seat, and Florida redrew several parts of its map in an attempt to tilt four House seats toward the GOP. Meanwhile, Tennessee redrew its map to break up the lone Democratic district in its congressional delegation.Subsequent lawsuits on the emergency docket attempted to block these changes ahead of the midterm elections but were halted by the Supreme Court, allowing the new maps to go into effect.Outside of racial gerrymandering lawsuits, the Supreme Court had to wade into four different disputes about state congressional maps in just the past year on its emergency docket.The high court allowed both California and Texas to enact their respective redrawn congressional maps, which aimed to net Democrats new seats in the Golden State and Republican new seats in the Lone Star State, respectively. The Supreme Court declined to intervene in May after the Virginia Supreme Court struck down a voter-approved congressional map that would have gained Democrats up to four seats. Later in the year, the high court declined to overturn the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling forcing a referendum on a new congressional map, which would have net the GOP a House seat.With the 2026 midterm elections a week away, the Supreme Court is not expected to have to weigh into redistricting disputes until potential redrawing ahead of the 2028 elections.Campaign finance rulings The high court’s June ruling in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission opened the floodgates for more coordinated spending between political parties and candidates, giving Republicans a key win heading into the costly midterm elections.While the ruling is beneficial to both major political parties, the decision was widely viewed as an immediate victory for the GOP because of its significant cash advantage at the party level, whereas Democratic candidates have been outraising Republican candidates individually this cycle. The GOP prepared for the ruling and was able to begin coordinated spending with its candidates heading into the critical fall campaign.Ahead of the Supreme Court’s June ruling in the NRSC case, the Federal Communications Commission issued a rule allowing political parties and joint fundraising committees to access the same, more favorable television advertisement rates that are typically reserved for political candidates. The rule was challenged by Democratic congressional candidates who hoped to strike it down due to their cash advantage.The Supreme Court had to weigh in to that legal challenge twice prior to the midterm elections, allowing the FCC’s revised rule to remain in effect both times. The high court’s two rulings punted the continuing legal challenge to the FCC rule to be settled after the election.Mail ballot rulings The Supreme Court’s June ruling in Watson v. Republican National Committee was a surprising setback for critics of lax mail ballot rules, with the high court ruling 5-4 that a Mississippi law counting mail ballots postmarked by Election Day but received up to five days later is not preempted by federal law. The ruling, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, found that the law establishing Election Day requires a voter’s decision to be made on that day, rather than to have their vote collected by then. That allowed the lengthy grace periods for late-arriving ballots to remain in place in states that permit it.If the Supreme Court had struck down the Mississippi law, it would likely have affected similar laws in 14 states where officials count ballots postmarked by, but received days after, Election Day. Activists had pointed to the lengthy delays in tabulating elections results in close races in states, such as California, that allow late-arriving mail ballots to count. Jason Snead, executive director of Honest Elections Project, said in the aftermath of the Watson ruling that the majority on the high court had sided “with California-style chaos.”A U.S. Postal Service mail ballot rule pushed by the Trump administration ahead of the midterm elections also landed on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket this year. The Postal Service rule would require mail-in ballots to bear Election Mail markings and be sent in automation-compatible envelopes with unique Intelligent Mail barcodes. Election officials would submit voters’ names, addresses, and corresponding barcode information through a federal portal. Proponents of the rule said it would treat ballots as secure mail and allow voters to track their ballots more closely.The Trump administration argued the Postal Service rule is within the federal government’s authority because it involves managing the Postal Service rather than impeding on the states’ authority to conduct elections, but the Supreme Court rejected the emergency petition to lift a block on the rule in September. The decision means the rule will not be in effect for the midterm elections but could be implemented in later ones if the Trump administration ultimately succeeds on the merits in the courts.THE ‘COME-AND-TAKE-IT’ SUPREME COURT TERM: AT-HOME PRAYER, PLANES, AND HOME DISTILLINGThe Supreme Court does not having any pending emergency petitions regarding the elections, and the high court’s next election-related case involves voter registration forms in Arizona. RNC v. Mi Familia Vota will be heard by the justices in December, with a ruling expected by the end of June 2027.The midterm elections could have an impact on the future of the high court, especially if control of the Senate flips to the Democrats. If the GOP loses the Senate majority, President Donald Trump could face significant difficulty filling any Supreme Court vacancy that may open up during his final two years in office.