After the US midterms, the courts: the legal fights that could shape what comes next

Democrats have won control of both houses of the US Congress in Tuesday's midterm elections, according to race calls by the Associated Press. When the new Congress meets on 3 January 2027, President Donald Trump will face, for his final two years in office, a House that can subpoena his administration and a Senate that can block his nominees, including judges.

The vote itself was fought partly in the courts. In the six months before 3 November, the US Supreme Court weakened the Voting Rights Act, preserved late-arriving mail ballots in 14 states and Washington, DC, and on the eve of the election turned down the Justice Department's bid to set aside about 20,000 California ballots. The department also went to court in Alaska to block certification of a Senate race.

The legal contest is not over. Close races now move to recounts and certification under state law, and the new majorities will test how far Congress can use subpoenas, war-powers votes and the power of the purse against a president who has promised to veto their agenda. This piece sets out the rules that shaped the vote, the disputes that may follow it, and what it means for India.

Where the count stands

The Associated Press called the Senate for the Democrats shortly before midnight US Eastern time on Tuesday, about 10:30 IST on Wednesday, and later called the House for them as well (Time live updates). Democrats needed a net gain of three House seats and four Senate seats; by early Wednesday they had flipped seven Republican-held Senate seats and 16 House seats, according to AP race calls, without losing any of their own (Spectrum News, citing AP).

The size of the House majority is still being counted. NBC News projects about 255 Democratic seats, well beyond the 218 needed (NBC News); MS NOW estimates at least 245 (MS NOW). CBS News said about 75 House races were still undecided (CBS News).

In the Senate, AP-called Democratic wins include Texas, where James Talarico became the state's first Democratic senator in decades; Kansas (Adam Hamilton); North Carolina (Roy Cooper); and Maine, where Troy Jackson defeated Republican Susan Collins. Democrats also flipped seats in Ohio, Iowa and South Carolina, CBS News projects.

President Donald Trump said the Democrats "did a good job" and blamed Republican candidates for the losses, AP reported (PBS/AP). He has also said he will use his veto against the Democrats' agenda (PBS/AP). The new Congress convenes on 3 January 2027.

The rules the courts set before the vote

Three Supreme Court rulings in 2026 changed the legal ground on which this election was fought.

Voting Rights Act. On 29 April, in Louisiana v. Callais, the court ruled 6-3 that Louisiana's congressional map, which had added a second majority-Black district, was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander (Ballotpedia). The ruling narrowed Section 2 of the 1965 Act, the main federal protection against maps that dilute minority votes. In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that it left Section 2 "all but a dead letter" (No Labels). President Trump called it a win for equal protection that returned the Act to its original intent, while Democratic National Committee chair Ken Martin called it a "dark day for America" (Daily Wire). Several states moved to redraw their maps in response (Democracy Works).

Mail ballots. On 29 June, in Watson v. Republican National Committee, the court ruled 5-4 that federal Election Day laws do not stop states from counting ballots postmarked by Election Day that arrive afterwards. Mississippi counts them for up to five business days (US Vote Foundation). Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority and Justice Samuel Alito dissented; the decision kept grace periods in place in 14 states and Washington, DC (Venable).

Tariffs. On 20 February, in Learning Resources v. Trump, the court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not allow the president to impose tariffs (ThePrint). The administration replaced them within hours with a 10% global duty under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a power that lasts 150 days unless Congress extends it (Plante Moran). That ruling put tariff policy back within reach of Congress, which the Democrats will now control.

The disputes that run past Election Day

The Justice Department under President Trump took an unusually active part in this election, and several of its cases are still live.

California. The department sued California and Los Angeles County on 15 October, asking that mail ballots from more than 20,000 registered voters it says are likely non-citizens be set aside until their citizenship is checked (Campaign Legal Center). A federal district court refused on 28 October and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refused on 30 October. On 2 November the Supreme Court denied the department's emergency application in an unsigned order with no noted dissents (CNBC). The department says its list identifies likely non-citizens; it has not shown that 20,000 non-citizens actually voted (yourNEWS). California Governor Gavin Newsom said the administration did not understand the word "no" (Epoch Times).

Alaska. The department sued to block certification of the Senate race if Republican Senator Dan Sullivan narrowly lost, citing possible confusion with another candidate of a similar name. A federal judge dismissed the suit and the department has appealed (Time).

Texas. A suit filed by Republican plaintiffs in the Amarillo division of the federal court for northern Texas seeks to block certification unless every ballot in the state is counted by hand. The Democrats' Senate and House campaign committees have asked to oppose it, arguing it would mean a compressed recount across all 254 counties (Democracy Docket).

Certification and seating. Republicans close to the White House told MS NOW they expected to contest results in key counties and states, and some Republicans have floated refusing to seat Democratic winners (MS NOW). The legal framework is set out in the US Constitution: Article I, Section 5 makes each chamber "the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members". Disputed House races fall under a federal statute, the Federal Contested Elections Act; the Senate has no equivalent law and decides contests by its own procedures. Certification deadlines are set state by state, and there is no single national deadline (Outlook). MIT political scientist Charles Stewart has named litigation, ballot custody, certification and the seating of members as the main flashpoints of the post-election period (USA Herald).

The probable aftermath: what the law lets each side do

Control of Congress gives the Democrats strong tools to investigate and block, but much weaker ones to make law. The likely shape of the next two years follows from that gap.

Subpoenas, and the courts. Committee chairs can compel documents and testimony. Democrats have signalled investigations into the Trump family's business and cryptocurrency dealings, government contracts involving Elon Musk, cuts to federal agencies, immigration enforcement and the conduct of the Iran war (Iraqi News, citing AFP). Robert Garcia, the Democrat expected to chair the House Oversight Committee, posted an election-night message telling Republicans to "lawyer up" (RTÉ). The administration may resist, which would move these fights into court. The governing precedent is Trump v. Mazars (2020), in which the Supreme Court held that congressional subpoenas for a president's personal records must serve a valid legislative purpose and be no broader than necessary. Litigation under that test can take months or years, so delay is itself a defence.

Impeachment. The House can impeach by a simple majority, but removal needs a two-thirds vote of the Senate, which the Democrats do not have (RTÉ). Party leaders have not committed to a third impeachment of President Trump, and Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton have said they oppose it. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth is seen as a more likely target, over US actions in Iran, Venezuela, Yemen and elsewhere (ABC News Australia).

War powers. The House has repeatedly passed resolutions to limit military operations against Iran, and the Senate passed its own version in June (Al-Monitor). Under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, Congress can direct the president to end hostilities it has not authorised, but any such resolution can be vetoed. A more forceful lever is the power of the purse: Congress can deny funds for the war, though that requires passing spending laws the president signs.

Legislation and the veto. House leader Hakeem Jeffries has promised a first-100-hours programme, including restoring health-insurance subsidies, reversing Medicaid cuts and rolling back tariffs (RTÉ). Most bills need 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster, and overriding a presidential veto needs two-thirds of both chambers (Yahoo/AFP). Expect bills that pass the House and stall, or that are vetoed, and a series of hard negotiations over must-pass spending.

Confirmations. A Democratic Senate can refuse to confirm cabinet nominees and federal judges, including any nominee for a Supreme Court vacancy (Yahoo/AFP). AP reported that this would likely hamper the president's hopes of sustaining the court's conservative shift (PBS/AP). Because federal judges serve for life, this may prove the longest-lasting effect of the result.

Two scenarios follow from these rules. If the administration complies with subpoenas and negotiates on spending, the next two years look like ordinary divided government: investigations, vetoes and occasional deals. If it refuses subpoenas and keeps up military operations without authorisation, more of the contest moves into the courts, testing the limits of Mazars, the War Powers Resolution and Congress's control of spending.

Why the legal fights may matter less than they appear

The margins are large. With projections of 245 to 255 Democratic House seats and at least seven Senate flips, no single recount or certification dispute is likely to change which party controls either chamber. Post-election lawsuits matter most in races decided by a few hundred votes, and they can still decide individual seats among the dozens yet to be called.

The courts have so far held the line on counting. Every court to rule on the California ballots, up to the Supreme Court, refused to stop the count, and the Alaska suit was dismissed. Legal experts expected the department's pre-election suits to fail, as similar ones have before (The Fulcrum).

The administration's supporters frame its actions differently. The Justice Department says it is protecting lawful votes from dilution by non-citizen voting and that California refused to cooperate (Signal). President Trump has said the war against Iran was the right decision, while acknowledging to The Wall Street Journal that it played a part in the losses (CNBC). On this view, the new Congress's oversight drive is partisan, and courts will protect executive confidentiality.

Finally, the president keeps substantial powers that do not need Congress, including over immigration, trade under Section 301 and Section 232, and military operations (Yahoo/AFP). A Democratic Congress can slow these, but in most cases cannot stop them without a veto-proof majority.

What it means for India

The most direct effect is on trade. There is still no signed India-US trade deal: the two governments announced only a framework for an interim agreement on 6 February (ATB Legal). After the Supreme Court's February tariff ruling, the 10% Section 122 duty on Indian goods ran out on 24 July, at the end of its 150-day limit, and was replaced the same day by a 10% duty under Section 301, which most Indian goods now pay on top of normal customs duty (Airlift). External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar has said the talks are far advanced but that the continuing Section 301 process affects when to conclude them (Open).

The legal point for Indian exporters is that Section 301 duties are imposed by the US Trade Representative, not by Congress. A Democratic Congress that wants to roll back tariffs can pass bills, but the president can veto them. A signed deal would need a legal vehicle, such as a modified Section 301 action or legislation (ATB Legal), and legislation would now need Democratic votes. That gives Congress more say over the final shape of any India deal than it had a year ago.

The second channel is the war with Iran, which has pushed up fuel costs (RTÉ). India imports most of its crude oil, so any binding war-powers measure or funding limit that shortens the conflict would ease pressure on its import bill; a veto battle that prolongs it would not.

Third, a Senate that can block nominees and a House investigating the administration's Gulf dealings mean that US foreign-policy commitments in West Asia and the Indo-Pacific will face more congressional scrutiny than in the past two years.

What to watch

• The coming days: calls in the remaining House races, about 75 of which were undecided on Wednesday morning, according to CBS News.
• November and December: state certification deadlines, which differ from state to state, and any recount requests in close races.
• Pending: the Justice Department's appeal in the Alaska certification case, and the Texas hand-count suit in Amarillo.
• Lame-duck session: whether Representative Thomas Massie forces a vote on impeaching Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth before the current Congress ends (Reason).
• 3 January 2027: the new Congress convenes; House Democrats' first-100-hours bills, and the first subpoenas from Democratic committee chairs.
• Pending: the US Trade Representative's Section 301 "excess capacity" investigations, opened on 11 March and covering India among 16 economies, with no determination published as of 10 October (Ginger Control).