Legal experts have criticized the U.S.Supreme Court for its handling of Watson v.R.N.C., a case questioning whether federal law allows counting mail-in ballots received after election day.

Georgetown law professor Steve Vladek argued on the 'The Court of History' podcast that several justices appeared more concerned with policy debates and hypothetical claims of voter fraud from partisan media than with interpreting the law.

Vladek described the case as 'remarkably stupid,' noting that American elections have allowed mail-in ballots, including for military personnel and seniors, since at least the 1840s.He further suggested that the plaintiffs’ arguments could unintentionally challenge early voting practices.The case comes shortly after the Court's controversial decision in Louisiana v.

Callais, which weakened Section 2 protections under the Voting Rights Act, allowing partisan gerrymandering that could lead to racially discriminatory outcomes.

Vladek warned that while four justices seemed sympathetic to the plaintiffs’ reasoning, there is concern that this could influence a majority decision, potentially affecting the upcoming midterm elections and broader voting practices in the U.S.