Bost v. Illinois State Bd. of Elections | Case No. 24-568 | Oral Argument Date: 10/8/25 | Docket Link: Here

Overview

This episode examines Bost v. Illinois, a Supreme Court case that could reshape how candidates challenge election laws in federal court. Congressman Michael Bost and two Republican presidential elector nominees are challenging Illinois's law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted up to 14 days after Election Day, creating a fundamental test of Article III standing doctrine in the election law context. The case sits at the intersection of constitutional standing requirements and the unique competitive dynamics of electoral politics, with implications for whether candidates should receive special treatment to challenge election rules or must meet the same concrete injury standards as all other plaintiffs.

Episode Roadmap

Opening: A Fundamental Question About Federal Courts

• October 8, 2025 oral argument date

• Standing doctrine meets election law in crucial constitutional test

• Circuit split on candidate challenges to election rules

• Implications for flood of pre-election litigation vs. orderly dispute resolution

Background: Illinois's Ballot-Receipt Extension

• 2005 Illinois law change allowing 14-day post-Election Day counting window

• Historical roots in Civil War soldier voting accommodations

• About half of states now allow similar extended receipt deadlines

• Congressman Michael Bost and two Republican presidential elector nominees challenge law

Constitutional Framework: Article III's Case-or-Controversy Requirement

• "Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity"

• Standing doctrine requires concrete, particularized, traceable injury

• Tension between candidate investment in election rules and generalized grievances

• Elections Clause and Electors Clause federal framework

Procedural Journey Through the Courts

• May 2022: Pre-enforcement challenge filed

• July 2023: District court dismisses for lack of standing

• Seventh Circuit affirmed in split decision with Judge Scudder's influential partial dissent

• Supreme Court grants certiorari to resolve candidate standing question

The Three-Way Legal Battle

• Petitioners' blanket candidate standing rule vs. concrete injury requirements

• Electoral harm theory: competitive disadvantage vs. speculative injury

• Pocketbook injury claims: campaign extension costs vs. manufactured standing

Clapper Doctrine and Mitigation Expenditures

• When spending money to avoid harm creates standing vs. speculative preparation

• Illinois's challenge to factual basis of extended campaign operations

• "Near certainty" of ballot counting vs. substantial risk standard

Oral Argument Preview: Key Tensions to Watch

• Justices' reaction to special candidate standing exception

• Factual record problems and thin allegations

• Floodgates concerns vs. orderly pre-election resolution

• Purcell principle timing considerations

Broader Constitutional Stakes

• Article III's role in limiting federal court jurisdiction

• Election law's unique challenges for traditional standing doctrine

• Federalism questions about state election rule authority

• Volume and intensity of modern election litigation trends

Referenced Cases

Clapper v. Amnesty International | 568 U.S. 398 (2013)

• Question Presented: Whether respondents have Article III standing to challenge FISA Amendments Act surveillance provisions
• Arguments: Established restrictive doctrine that plaintiffs cannot manufacture standing by spending money to mitigate speculative future harm; requires substantial risk of concrete injury that mitigation expenditures are designed to avoid; Illinois relies heavily on this precedent to challenge Bost's campaign extension costs as insufficient for standing.

• Question Presented: Whether provisions of McCain-Feingold Act that impose different contribution limits on candidates facing self-funded opponents violate Equal Protection and First Amendment
• Arguments: Supreme Court recognized candidate standing based on competitive electoral harm and fundraising disadvantages in "competitive context of electoral politics"; petitioners rely on this precedent to support their electoral prospects injury theory; demonstrates Court's acceptance that campaign competition can create cognizable Article III injury.

• Question Presented: Whether plaintiffs have Article III standing to bring pre-enforcement constitutional challenge to Ohio election law prohibiting false campaign statements
• Arguments: Established framework for pre-enforcement challenges in election context using "substantial risk" standard for future harm; relevant to petitioners' argument that they face substantial risk of electoral and financial harm from Illinois's ballot-receipt deadline; provides precedential support for challenging election rules before they take effect in specific election.