The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on Wednesday heard oral arguments in Rep. Michael Bost's (R-Ill.) lawsuit challenging a state law that allows mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted up to 14 days after polls close. He argues the regulation violates federal statutes.

New York Post

ABC news

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on Wednesday heard oral arguments in Rep. Michael Bost's (R-Ill.) lawsuit challenging a state law that allows mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted up to 14 days after polls close. He argues the regulation violates federal statutes.

Lower federal courts dismissed Bost's case after determining he lacked standing to sue, finding that he failed to demonstrate concrete harm since he won his 2022 election with 75% of the vote and his 2024 election with 74% of the vote.

The New York Times

The New York Sun

Lower federal courts dismissed Bost's case after determining he lacked standing to sue, finding that he failed to demonstrate concrete harm since he won his 2022 election with 75% of the vote and his 2024 election with 74% of the vote.

During oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern about requiring candidates to prove electoral harm at wrought times. He also called courts basing a candidate's right to sue on his or her ability to win the election a "potential disaster."

Guardian

NPR Online

During oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern about requiring candidates to prove electoral harm at wrought times. He also called courts basing a candidate's right to sue on his or her ability to win the election a "potential disaster."

Justice Elena Kagan characterized the legal challenge as a suit "in search of a problem," noting that numerous election lawsuits are filed by voters and political parties during every election cycle without requiring new standing rules for candidates.

Justice Elena Kagan characterized the legal challenge as a suit "in search of a problem," noting that numerous election lawsuits are filed by voters and political parties during every election cycle without requiring new standing rules for candidates.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and League of Women Voters filed briefs supporting Bost's right to sue despite opposing his challenge to mail-in ballot rules. They cited concerns about future voting rights litigation access.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and League of Women Voters filed briefs supporting Bost's right to sue despite opposing his challenge to mail-in ballot rules. They cited concerns about future voting rights litigation access.

A SCOTUS ruling in Bost's favor could enable more legal challenges to state election laws ahead of future elections, potentially affecting more than a dozen states that currently accept mail-in ballots received after Election Day.

A SCOTUS ruling in Bost's favor could enable more legal challenges to state election laws ahead of future elections, potentially affecting more than a dozen states that currently accept mail-in ballots received after Election Day.

Representative Michael Bost, a Republican from Illinois, filed a lawsuit in 2022 challenging a state law that allows mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted up to 14 days after polls close, arguing the regulation violates federal statutes.</span

New York Post #

ABC news #

Representative Michael Bost, a Republican from Illinois, filed a lawsuit in 2022 challenging a state law that allows mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted up to 14 days after polls close, arguing the regulation violates federal statutes.

Lower federal courts dismissed Bost's case after determining he lacked standing to sue, finding that he failed to demonstrate concrete harm since he won his 2022 election with 75% of the vote and his 2024 election with 74% of the vote.</span

CNN #

The New York Times #

During Supreme Court oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern that requiring candidates to prove electoral harm would force courts to make political determinations during the most fraught time to be involved in politics.</span

Guardian #

NPR Online #

During Supreme Court oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern that requiring candidates to prove electoral harm would force courts to make political determinations during the most fraught time to be involved in politics.

Justice Elena Kagan characterized the legal challenge as a suit in search of a problem, noting that numerous election lawsuits are filed by voters and political parties during every election cycle without requiring new standing rules for candidates.</span

The New York Sun #

Justice Elena Kagan characterized the legal challenge as a suit in search of a problem, noting that numerous election lawsuits are filed by voters and political parties during every election cycle without requiring new standing rules for candidates.

The American Civil Liberties Union and League of Women Voters filed briefs supporting Bost's right to sue despite vehemently opposing his challenge to mail-in ballot rules, citing concerns about future voting rights litigation access.</span

The American Civil Liberties Union and League of Women Voters filed briefs supporting Bost's right to sue despite vehemently opposing his challenge to mail-in ballot rules, citing concerns about future voting rights litigation access.

A Supreme Court ruling in favor of Bost could enable more legal challenges to state election laws ahead of future elections, potentially affecting the 16 states that currently accept mail-in ballots received after Election Day.</span

A Supreme Court ruling in favor of Bost could enable more legal challenges to state election laws ahead of future elections, potentially affecting the 16 states that currently accept mail-in ballots received after Election Day.

Illinois's ballot law violates federal election law by counting votes arriving two weeks after Election Day, potentially changing election outcomes and forcing candidates to spend extra money on extended campaigns. Federal law clearly establishes Election Day as the deadline, making these late ballots unlawful. Any federal candidate affected by state election laws should have standing to challenge them in court.

Illinois's ballot law violates federal election law by counting votes arriving two weeks after Election Day, potentially changing election outcomes and forcing candidates to spend extra money on extended campaigns. Federal law clearly establishes Election Day as the deadline, making these late ballots unlawful. Any federal candidate affected by state election laws should have standing to challenge them in court.</span

The Daily Signal

The Daily Signal #

What to Expect From Supreme Court Case on Ballots That Come in After Elections

Republican efforts to restrict ballot counting are designed to create post-election chaos and disenfranchise voters whose legally cast ballots arrive after Election Day. These frivolous lawsuits waste court resources when existing laws already protect voter rights. Elections belong to the people, not candidates seeking to manipulate rules for political advantage.

Republican efforts to restrict ballot counting are designed to create post-election chaos and disenfranchise voters whose legally cast ballots arrive after Election Day. These frivolous lawsuits waste court resources when existing laws already protect voter rights. Elections belong to the people, not candidates seeking to manipulate rules for political advantage.</span

Democracy Docket

Democracy Docket #

SCOTUS Sounds Skeptical of Right-Wing Push for Flood of Election Law Challenges

Supreme Court Weighs GOP Challenge to Mail-In Ballot Rules

Electoral systems

United States of America

Of course, SCOTUS should find that Bost has standing in this case. No one would have any standing if a candidate for federal office doesn't have the right to challenge a state law that affects his or her election, especially one that allows votes to be counted after Election Day.

Of course, SCOTUS should find that Bost has standing in this case. No one would have any standing if a candidate for federal office doesn't have the right to challenge a state law that affects his or her election, especially one that allows votes to be counted after Election Day.

A ruling in Bost's favor will further efforts by election conspiracy theorists on the right to create post-election chaos and disenfranchise voters who cast ballots in accordance with the laws of their states. Frivolous lawsuits waste court resources when existing laws already protect voter rights.

A ruling in Bost's favor will further efforts by election conspiracy theorists on the right to create post-election chaos and disenfranchise voters who cast ballots in accordance with the laws of their states. Frivolous lawsuits waste court resources when existing laws already protect voter rights.

There's an 11% chance that a court will change the winner of a 2026 election for U.S. House, Senate, or a top statewide office, according to the Metaculus prediction community.

There's an 11% chance that a court will change the winner of a 2026 election for U.S. House, Senate, or a top statewide office, according to the Metaculus prediction community.

Supreme Court Weighs GOP Challenge to Mail-In Ballot Rules

Supreme Court Weighs GOP Challenge to Mail-In Ballot Rules

The Spin

Metaculus Prediction

Sign Up for Our Free Newsletters
Sign Up for Our Free Newsletters

Supreme Court Weighs GOP Challenge to Mail-In Ballot Rules

Supreme Court Weighs GOP Challenge to Mail-In Ballot Rules

The Spin

Metaculus Prediction

Sign Up for Our Free NewslettersSign Up for Our Free Newsletters

Sign Up for Our Free Newsletters
Sign Up for Our Free Newsletters