The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 Wednesday that political candidates can challenge election procedures before proving harm, potentially flooding courts with pre-election lawsuits across 25 states with mail ballot grace periods.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority in Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections that candidates hold an inherent interest in fair electoral processes regardless of whether disputed rules affect their chances of winning. The decision reverses the Seventh Circuit, which dismissed Illinois Congressman Mike Bost’s challenge to the state’s practice of counting mail ballots arriving up to 14 days after Election Day.
Illinois permits officials to count ballots received within two weeks of Election Day if postmarked on or before Election Day. Bost, a Republican representing Illinois’ 12th District, sued the Illinois State Board of Elections in May 2022 with two Republican presidential elector nominees, arguing the practice violates federal law establishing Election Day as the Tuesday following the first Monday in November.
District Judge John Kness dismissed the lawsuit in July 2023 for lack of standing. The Seventh Circuit affirmed 2-1 in August 2023, noting Bost won his 2020 race with 60 percent and failed to demonstrate concrete injury.
Roberts rejected that framework. “Candidates have a concrete and particularized interest in the rules that govern the counting of votes in their elections, regardless whether those rules harm their electoral prospects or increase the cost of their campaigns.” He argued the ruling lets courts resolve election disputes before ballots are cast rather than amid post-election chaos.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented with Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “In a democratic society like ours, the interest in a fair electoral process is common to all members of the voting public,” Jackson wrote. She warned the majority “opens the floodgates to exactly the type of troubling election-related litigation the court purportedly wants to avoid.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurred with Justice Elena Kagan but rejected Roberts’ reasoning, arguing Bost has standing based on pocketbook injury from monitoring late-arriving ballots, not special candidate status.
The Court did not address whether Illinois’ law violates federal statute. The case returns to lower courts, though the standing question may become moot—the Court will hear a separate challenge to Mississippi’s identical 14-day ballot receipt deadline later this term.
Judicial Watch called the ruling a “major Supreme Court victory.” Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters declared it “a major win for election integrity and basic accountability.” Wendy Weiser of the Brennan Center for Justice warned the Court “just opened the floodgates to candidates challenging election rules, regardless of whether those rules will impact their races.”
Tuesday brought four hours of arguments in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., challenging state bans on biological males competing in women’s sports. The conservative majority signaled likely support for Idaho and West Virginia laws.
Lindsay Hecox challenged Idaho’s 2020 Fairness in Women’s Sports Act after trying out for Boise State University track and cross-country teams. The Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction blocking enforcement. Becky Pepper-Jackson, a West Virginia high school student who takes puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, challenged West Virginia’s 2021 Save Women’s Sports Act.
Chief Justice Roberts appeared skeptical of arguments against laws drawing lines based on biological sex. Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted girls sports growth over 50 years has been “inspiring,” and allowing biological males to compete would reverse that success. Justice Samuel Alito pressed attorney Kathleen Hartnett, asking what she would say about female athletes opposing transgender participation. “What do you say about them? Are they bigots?” Hartnett replied she would never call anyone that.
The conservative justices signaled reluctance to find the laws violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause or Title IX’s sex discrimination prohibition. A decision is expected by early summer.
Wednesday delivered two additional decisions. In Barrett v. United States, the Court ruled Congress did not authorize dual convictions under federal firearms statute sections 924(c)(1)(A)(i) and 924(j) for a single act. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson reversed the Second Circuit. Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred in part, arguing the case proves the Court needs to resolve Double Jeopardy Clause confusion.
In Case v. Montana, the Court ruled unanimously that police can enter a home without a warrant if they have an “objectively reasonable basis for believing” someone inside needs emergency assistance. Justice Elena Kagan rejected petitioner William Case’s argument that the Fourth Amendment’s emergency aid exception requires probable cause. Montana officers responded after Case’s ex-girlfriend called 911 reporting he threatened suicide and may have shot himself. Officers saw an empty handgun holster and apparent suicide note inside before entering. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch concurred.
Monday brought arguments in Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, where Louisiana parishes seek billions from oil companies for World War II-era coastal damage. The question: whether federal contractors can remove state tort lawsuits to federal court. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself.
Louisiana parishes filed 42 lawsuits over a decade ago claiming oil and gas companies whose predecessors produced crude oil along the coast during World War II violated state law and damaged the coastline. The parishes’ lawsuits target exploration and production of crude oil, while companies held federal contracts to produce aviation gasoline requiring them to refine crude oil. The Fifth Circuit rejected companies’ effort to transfer cases from state to federal court under the federal officer removal statute.
Wednesday afternoon brought arguments in Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp. and NJ Transit Corp. v. Colt on whether New Jersey Transit can invoke sovereign immunity to block suits in New York and Pennsylvania. Jeffrey Colt was struck crossing a Manhattan street in 2017. Cedric Galette’s vehicle was hit on Philadelphia’s Market Street in 2018. New York’s highest court ruled NJ Transit lacks interstate sovereign immunity. Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court ruled the opposite. The justices did not split along traditional ideological lines.
Friday the Court granted certiorari in five cases: Cisco Systems v. Doe I on whether federal laws allow private lawsuits for aiding and abetting torture and international law violations; Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T and Verizon Communications v. FCC on whether the FCC can assess monetary penalties without jury trial guarantees; and Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission on whether the SEC can require defendants to surrender profits without proving investors suffered financial harm.
The Court declined to rule on President Trump’s tariffs for the second consecutive decision day. The case, argued in early November, examines whether Trump had authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose duties on trading partners. The Court has not announced when it will issue its next opinions.
Tuesday brings arguments on Hawaii’s gun restrictions in Wolford v. Lopez. Hawaii makes it a crime for concealed carry permit holders to carry handguns on private property without express owner authorization. The Ninth Circuit upheld the law. Petitioners cite a Second Circuit ruling striking down a similar New York statute.
Wednesday the Court hears Trump v. Cook on whether the president can fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook for cause. Trump attempted to fire Cook this year, alleging mortgage fraud before her appointment. Cook began a 14-year Federal Reserve Board term in 2023. The Federal Reserve Act permits the president to remove board members only “for cause.” A district court blocked the firing.
Louisiana v. Callais on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act remains undecided. Arguments were held October 15, with the conservative majority appearing poised to weaken the VRA provision prohibiting states from diluting minority voting power. Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill abandoned the state’s defense of its two majority-Black congressional districts in August, declaring all “race-based redistricting is unconstitutional.” A decision is expected before the term ends in June.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 