MAJOR VICTORY: U.S. Supreme Court Sides With ACLJ Brief and Affirms Candidates’ Right To Challenge Unconstitutional Election Laws

Today, the Supreme Court delivered a resounding victory for election integrity and constitutional governance in Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections. In a majority decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court reversed the Seventh Circuit’s dangerous precedent and affirmed what the ACLJ has argued: Political candidates have standing to challenge election rules that govern their own elections – without needing to prove they will lose.

This decision vindicates the ACLJ’s position in the crucial amicus brief we filed in this case, where we stood as guardians of constitutional liberties and the fundamental principle that Election Day means Election Day.

Take action with us as we defend election integrity. Add your name to the petition: Defend Election Integrity and the Constitution.

The Case: Illinois’ Unconstitutional Ballot Deadline Extension

Congressman Michael Bost (IL-12) challenged an Illinois law that extends ballot counting days after Election Day for mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day. This practice forced Rep. Bost to recruit additional poll watchers, extend his monitoring operations, and keep his campaign headquarters open for two extra weeks – imposing concrete monetary costs and uncertainty on his campaign.

Despite these clear injuries, the lower courts dismissed his lawsuit, with the Seventh Circuit inventing an unprecedented requirement that candidates must prove the challenged law would cause them to lose their election. This created an impossible catch-22: Successful candidates couldn’t challenge laws because they won, while unsuccessful candidates faced the insurmountable burden of proving the law cost them the election.

The ACLJ recognized this constitutional crisis for what it was – a direct threat to election integrity and meaningful judicial review of potentially unconstitutional state election laws.

The ACLJ’s Critical Role in Defending Election Integrity

As we emphasized in our amicus brief, this case represented exactly the kind of fundamental constitutional issue the ACLJ was founded to address. We showed that Rep. Bost suffered exactly the type of concrete, particularized injury that Article III demands. The extended ballot deadline forced him to expend additional campaign resources, altered the electoral playing field, and created the kind of tangible harm our constitutional system protects against.

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court, adopted reasoning that closely tracks the ACLJ’s arguments. The Court held that candidates have a concrete and particularized interest in fair electoral processes – an interest distinct from voters and sufficient to satisfy Article III standing requirements.

The Court rejected the dangerous implications of the Seventh Circuit’s rule, recognizing that it would channel election disputes to the eve of elections or afterward – precisely when judicial intervention becomes most disruptive. As the Court emphasized, premising standing on a candidate’s risk of electoral loss would force federal judges to become political prognosticators, assessing matters beyond judicial expertise. Candidates suffer particularized harm when electoral processes depart from the law, regardless of whether they ultimately win or lose. Win or lose, candidates are deprived of the fair process that federal law guarantees when states extend voting beyond the congressionally mandated Election Day.

Justice Barrett, joined by Justice Kagan, concurred in the judgment but offered a narrower rationale for finding standing. Justice Barrett focused on traditional pocketbook injury. She argued that Congressman Bost has standing because he incurred concrete costs – hiring poll watchers and extending campaign operations – to mitigate the substantial risk that invalid ballots might be counted under Illinois’ extended deadline. Importantly, both the majority and Justice Barrett’s concurrence agree on the fundamental point that the ACLJ emphasized: The Seventh Circuit’s requirement that candidates prove they will lose their election was constitutionally untenable and had to be reversed.

Why This Matters: Protecting Constitutional Elections for All Americans

This victory extends far beyond Rep. Bost’s individual case. The Supreme Court’s decision protects every American’s right to elections conducted according to constitutional principles and the rule of law.

As we emphasized in our brief, federal law establishes a single, uniform Election Day for critical reasons. Congress mandated that federal elections occur on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November to ensure all Americans participate under the same terms and timeline. When states deviate from this uniform standard – extending ballot receipt for days or weeks beyond Election Day – they undermine the constitutional framework designed to maintain public confidence and electoral integrity.

Today’s Supreme Court represents another chapter in the ACLJ’s decades-long fight to ensure American elections operate according to the rule of law. Just as we defended ballot access in Trump v. Anderson, we will continue standing guard over the constitutional principles that sustain our republic.

Take action with us as we defend election integrity. Sign our petition.