The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday found itself at the center of a heated legal and political debate that could reshape the landscape of American elections. The justices heard arguments in a closely watched case challenging an Illinois law that allows mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted for up to two weeks after polls close. At stake is not just the fate of Illinois’ ballot-counting timeline, but also a broader question: Who has the right to bring lawsuits over election rules in federal court?
The case was brought by Representative Mike Bost, a six-term Republican from downstate Illinois, alongside two presidential electors. Their lawsuit, filed in 2022, argued that Illinois’ practice of counting late-arriving mail-in ballots amounts to an illegal extension of voting beyond the period set by federal law. As reported by ABC News, Bost and his co-plaintiffs insisted that this policy not only harms his election prospects but also causes a “pocketbook injury,” since candidates must continue staffing their campaigns during the extended ballot-counting period. “When it comes to elections, candidates running for office plainly have the most at stake. They put their lives on hold and spend countless hours and millions of dollars organizing and running campaigns,” their lawyers wrote.
Despite these claims, two lower courts dismissed the lawsuit. The federal district court ruled that Bost and the electors lacked standing because they could not prove any concrete harm from the policy. The court’s decision was clear: Bost’s assertions about being harmed—including the need to keep campaign resources active during the post-election period—were considered a “generalized grievance” rather than a specific injury that would grant him the right to sue. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit echoed this view, with a divided panel finding that any financial injury was self-inflicted, as candidates are not required to monitor post-election ballot counting.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case in June 2025, setting the stage for one of the most consequential terms in recent memory. According to The New York Times, the case is not just about Illinois: it’s the first of several voting rights and election-related disputes the court will hear this term, with implications for the mechanics of democracy nationwide.
The oral arguments, which stretched for about two hours, revealed a court grappling with the threshold question of legal standing. What must a political candidate show to prove they’ve been harmed by an election rule? If the justices endorse a broad standard, it could open the doors to a flood of lawsuits challenging state election laws, particularly from Republicans who argue that certain rules favor Democrats.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. appeared sympathetic to Bost’s position, suggesting that requiring courts to predict a candidate’s likelihood of winning before granting standing could be “a potential disaster.” Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh echoed this concern, warning against federal courts relying on “prognostication” about election outcomes. As Paul D. Clement, Bost’s attorney, put it: “A candidate is not a bystander in his or her own election.”
Yet not all justices were ready to embrace a sweeping new rule. Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised concerns about creating “bespoke rules” for different types of litigants, hinting at the risks of setting a precedent that could overwhelm courts with election disputes. Jane E. Notz, Illinois’ solicitor general, urged the court to reject Bost’s arguments, warning that a win for the congressman would create “chaos” for election officials and federal courts. She argued that it would flood the judiciary with cases and force officials to defend every election rule, diverting resources from the actual administration of elections.
The politics swirling around the case are hard to ignore. Former President Donald Trump and his allies have long criticized mail-in voting, especially after the 2020 election, using it to cast doubt on electoral outcomes. In August 2025, Trump declared, “It’s time that the Republicans get tough and stop it, because the Democrats want it. It’s the only way they can get elected.” Ironically, his campaign had previously encouraged mail-in voting among Republican supporters.
While Bost’s challenge aligns with the broader Republican push to limit mail-in voting, the legal question before the Supreme Court has led to some unusual alliances. Civil rights and voting rights groups—including the League of Women Voters and the American Civil Liberties Union—filed briefs supporting Bost’s right to sue. Their logic? They “vehemently” oppose Bost’s substantive challenge to Illinois’ mail-in ballot rules, but fear that a ruling against him could make it harder for any group, regardless of ideology, to challenge election laws in the future. According to The New York Times, these organizations argued that restricting standing would undermine the ability of civil rights groups to protect voters’ rights in court.
The Trump administration, for its part, supported part of Bost’s position. Solicitor General D. John Sauer advocated for a clear rule on candidate standing, writing in an amicus brief, “This Court can … establish a clear rule for standing to litigate disputes over election laws: candidates have standing to seek prospective relief challenging a rule governing the validity of ballots so long as there is a risk that the ballots at issue could affect the outcome of their election.” However, he cautioned against granting candidates overly broad claims to bring election-related lawsuits.
At the heart of the debate is the issue of “standing”—a legal doctrine that determines who has the right to bring a lawsuit in federal court. To sue, a plaintiff must show they have been personally harmed by the law or action in question, that the harm is traceable to the defendant, and that a court ruling could provide relief. The stakes are high: if the Supreme Court loosens the rules on standing, it could pave the way for more frequent and wide-ranging legal challenges to election laws, potentially upending how states run elections and how quickly results are finalized.
Bost insists his case is about more than his own campaign. In his appeal, he argued that the Supreme Court has “an opportunity … to provide lower courts and litigants much-needed guidance on candidate standing, outside of the high-stakes, emergency, post-election litigation where these issues commonly arise.”
As the justices weigh their decision, election officials, political candidates, and advocacy groups across the spectrum are watching closely. A ruling that expands standing could empower more challenges to state election rules, while a more restrictive decision might limit the ability of both political actors and civil rights groups to contest laws they believe are unfair or unconstitutional.
Whatever the outcome, the Supreme Court’s ruling will send ripples through the nation’s electoral system—potentially shaping how Americans vote, how campaigns are run, and how the courts referee the rules of democracy for years to come.
