Bost v. Illinois Bd. of Elections

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 2 Jun 2025

Federal law sets the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the federal Election Day. 2 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 7; and 3 U.S.C. § 1. Several states, including Illinois, have enacted state laws that allow ballots to be received and counted after Election Day. Petitioners contend these state laws are preempted under the Elections and Electors Clauses. Petitioners sued to enjoin Illinois' law allowing ballots to be received up to fourteen days after Election Day. The sole question presented here is whether Petitioners, as federal candidates, have pleaded sufficient factual allegations to show Article III standing to challenge state time, place, and manner regulations concerning their federal elections.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

Illinois counted mail-in ballots received up to two weeks after election day if they were postmarked or certified by election day. Congressman Michael Bost and two other candidates sued, saying that practice conflicted with federal election-day statutes. The Court held that Bost had standing as a candidate to challenge the rules governing the counting of votes in his election. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that candidates have a concrete and particularized interest in a fair and lawful electoral process, not just in winning or in avoiding extra campaign costs. The Court said unlawful vote counting can harm a candidate’s electoral prospects, reputation, and the legitimacy of the office he seeks. It rejected the view that a candidate must show a substantial risk of losing or of meeting a vote threshold before suing, because that would push many disputes into late or post-election litigation and force judges to make unreliable political predictions. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Sotomayor, dissented. The dissent argued that the majority created a special standing rule for candidates that departs from the usual requirement of an actual or imminent, particularized injury. It said Bost had not shown facts supporting standing under existing precedent and warned that recognizing standing based only on candidate status, and a generalized interest in fair elections, would complicate and destabilize standing doctrine and election administration.