The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. should appear on Michigan electoral ballots as an independent candidate, even though he had suspended his campaign for the November election and supported former President Donald Trump. The high court rejected a lower court’s reasoning that Kennedy had relinquished his ballot spot, signaling a careful stance on ballot access and the timing of petitions in a closely watched battleground state.
The court clarified that Kennedy had not clearly demonstrated a right to withdraw his name from the ballot, reversing a decision by an appellate court that had allowed the withdrawal. The ruling underscores how ballot access rules can hinge on procedural steps and late changes in campaign status, affecting voters and party dynamics across the state.
The decision also involves the leadership of the Natural Law Party, led by Doug Dern, whose authority to permit Kennedy to remain on the ballot was in question after Kennedy’s suspension of his candidacy. The state party leadership faced questions about how to handle a nominee who publicly shifted support to a rival candidate, and the court’s interpretation touches on the balance between party decision making and electoral requirements.
Although Kennedy received only a small share of political backing, the outcome could still influence Michigan’s tight race dynamics. Polls have shown a relatively narrow gap between the incumbent vice president Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, highlighting how even a modest third party or independent presence can factor into the overall vote split in a state known for its swing potential.
Observers note that the ruling may set a precedent for how late campaign changes are treated by courts and election officials in other jurisdictions. The practical effect in Michigan is that voters will be able to see Kennedy on the ballot in November, which could shape voter perception and turnout strategies, especially in a race where every percentage point matters. The decision also raises questions about how party leaders navigate nominations, withdrawals, and cross-endorsements when the political landscape shifts rapidly. These legal and procedural dimensions are central to understanding the mechanics of American elections and their impact on voter choices across the Midwest and beyond.