Michael J. Bost, et al., Petitioners v. Illinois State Board of Elections, et al.

The Court said a federal candidate can sue over election rules for counting votes, including Illinois' policy of counting some mail ballots that arrive up to two weeks after Election Day. In a 7-2 decision, the Court reversed the lower courts' dismissal of Congressman Michael Bost's case.

The Court ruled 7-2 for Bost, with Chief Justice Roberts writing the majority opinion and reversing the lower courts' dismissal.

Majority

Roberts

Thomas

Alito

Kagan

Barrett

Gorsuch

Kavanaugh

Dissent

Jackson

Sotomayor

“As a candidate for office, Congressman Bost has standing to challenge the rules that govern the counting of votes.”

This makes it easier for candidates to get into federal court to challenge election rules they say hurt their campaigns. For example, a candidate can now argue that a post-Election Day ballot deadline forces extra monitoring costs or affects the race's outcome.

The case now returns to the lower courts, which must consider Bost's challenge instead of dismissing it for lack of standing (the right to sue). Illinois election officials and the parties will now litigate whether the state's ballot-receipt rule is lawful on the merits.

The case asked whether federal candidates have standing (the right to sue) to challenge Illinois' extended mail-ballot receipt deadline. Bost said the rule diluted votes and increased campaign monitoring costs.

Candidates may now be more able to file federal challenges to vote-counting rules. Election officials could face more lawsuits over deadlines for receiving and counting mail ballots.

The lower courts must take up Bost's claims on the merits. The parties will now argue whether Illinois' ballot-counting rule itself can stand.