On Oct. 8, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, a case over whether a candidate, U.S. Rep. Michael Bost (R), has the legal standing to challenge an Illinois law allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted up to 14 days after Election Day. 

Bost, who represents Illinois’s 12th District, filed the lawsuit along with two presidential electors in May 2022 against the Illinois State Board of Elections. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that Article III of the U.S. Constitution requires a person suing to prove they have a real stake in the case and will suffer a concrete wrong as a direct result of the unlawful action they are suing over.

Bost argued that the law effectively extends the election by two weeks, forcing him to expend resources to monitor those ballots. And he said that any reduced margin of victory by improperly cast votes could harm a candidate’s future fundraising and campaign activities. 

These facts, the plaintiffs contend, should give them the legal ability to sue. And they argued the court should expand the ability of all candidates to sue over election laws. 

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the case on July 26, 2023, stating Bost and the electors did not have proper standing, or a legal right to sue over the law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal on August 21, 2024. Bost then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case on June 2, 2025.

Paul Clement, who represented Bost and the electors, said during oral arguments on Oct. 8 that limiting standing for candidates would require federal courts to wait until the last minute before an election to take up the case once candidates can prove they would be harmed by a particular law or rule. Clement served as U.S. Solicitor General from 2005 to 2008.

And Clement said some candidates, such as one representing a minor party, would never have standing to challenge a law if they were unlikely to win and could not prove a harm.

“Everybody would like the elections to be conducted lawfully and in compliance with federal law, including the voters, but the injury is visited more specifically on the candidate,” Clement said.

The state of Illinois has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the lower court ruling, arguing the previous decision was consistent with past precedent and that Bost’s claims are too speculative. 

Illinois Solicitor General Jane Notz said during oral arguments that expanding the ability to sue would allow any candidate to challenge any election rule they wanted, requiring election officials to spend more time dealing with litigation.

The definition of standing proposed by Bost, Notz said, would “cause chaos for election officials while saddling federal courts with resolving abstract policy disputes. This Court should hold candidates to the same standing requirements as every other plaintiff.”

As of Oct. 3, the Bost case was one of 40 cases the U.S. Supreme Court had agreed to hear in its 2025-2026 term. It is one of two cases the Supreme Court took on appeal from the Seventh Circuit.