Know your vote. Take a look at your sample ballot now!

Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections
Term: 2025
Important Dates
Argued: October 8, 2025
Decided:
Decided: January 14, 2026
Outcome
reversed and remanded
Vote
7-2
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett
Dissenting
Sonia Sotomayor • Ketanji Brown Jackson

Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on January 14, 2026, during the court's October 2025-2026 term. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on October 8, 2025. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that as a candidate for office, Congressman Bost has the legal standing to challenge the rules regarding counting the votes in his election.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerns whether the petitioners had Article III standing to bring this case. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "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."[2]
  • The outcome: The Supreme Court held that as a candidate for office, Congressman Bost has the legal standing to challenge the rules regarding counting the votes in his election.[1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Background

    Case summary

    The following are the parties to this case:[3]

    • Petitioner: Michael J. Bost, et al.
      • Legal counsel: Paul D. Clement (Clement & Murphy, PLLC), T. Russell Nobile (Judicial Watch, Inc.)
    • Respondent: Illinois State Board of Elections, et al.
      • Legal counsel: Jane Elinor Notz (Office of the Attorney General, State of Illinois), Alex Hemmer (Office of the Illinois Attorney General)

    The following summary of the case was published by Oyez

    “ Michael Bost, a multi-term U.S. Representative from Illinois’s 12th District, along with Laura Pollastrini and Susan Sweeney, political activists who served as presidential electors in 2020, challenged Illinois’s mail-in ballot receipt procedure. Under Illinois law, election officials can receive and count mail-in ballots for up to fourteen days after Election Day if the ballots are postmarked or certified by Election Day. Plaintiffs argued this procedure violates federal election statutes by impermissibly extending Election Day beyond the federally mandated date. They claimed the counting of these “untimely” ballots dilutes their votes and forces them to expend additional campaign resources to monitor ballot counting for two weeks after Election Day.

    Plaintiffs filed suit in May 2022 against the Illinois State Board of Elections and its Executive Director. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the case, finding that Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. The court also rejected their claims on the merits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.[4]

    		”

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ 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.[4] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[5]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[6]

    Outcome

    In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that as a candidate for office, Congressman Bost has the legal standing to challenge the rules regarding counting the votes in his election. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice John Roberts wrote:[1]

    “

    ‘Courts sometimes make standing law more complicated than it needs to be.’ Thole v. U. S. Bank N. A., 590 U. S. 538, 547 (2020). We decline respondents’ invitation to do so here. As a candidate for office, Congressman Bost has standing to challenge the rules that govern the counting of votes in his election. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.[4]

    		”
    —Justice John Roberts

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Elena Kagan.

    In her concurring opinion, Justice Barrett wrote:[1]

    “

    While I agree with the Court that Congressman Bost has standing, I disagree with its reasoning. In my view, Congressman Bost has standing because he has suffered a traditional pocketbook injury, not because of his status as a candidate.[4]

    		”
    —Justice Amy Coney Barrett

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

    In her dissent, Justice Brown Jackson wrote:[1]

    “

    I am all for simplifying our standing law. See ante, at 10. But I am against doing so selectively; either Article III standing requires an actual or imminent injury in fact that is particularized to the plaintiff, or it does not. Bost has plainly failed to allege facts that support an inference of standing under our established precedents. By carving out a bespoke rule for candidate-plaintiffs—granting them standing “to challenge the rules that govern the counting of votes,” simply and solely because they are “candidate[s]” for office, ibid.—the Court now complicates and destabilizes both our standing law and America’s electoral processes.[4]

    		”
    —Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2025-2026

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2025-2026

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 6, 2025. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions by mid-June.[7]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Supreme Court of the United States, "Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections," January 19, 2026
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "24-568 BOST V. ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS QP", June 2, 2025
    3. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 24-568 Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections" accessed Septemer 17, 2025
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued October 8, 2025
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued October 8, 2025
    7. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Bost_v._Illinois_State_Board_of_Elections&oldid=11034311"