Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections
No. 24-568 · October Term 2025 · Judicial Power · decided January 14, 2026
Decided: Bost won 7-2. The model was right.
Expected vote 6–3 for Bost. Chance of a unanimous ruling 43%. FantasySCOTUS crowd: 79% Bost.
The case
Michael J. Bost, a U.S. Representative, and other political activists are suing the Illinois State Board of Elections, challenging a state law that allows mail-in ballots to be received and counted up to fourteen days after the federally mandated Election Day. The lower courts dismissed the case, finding that the petitioners lacked Article III standing to bring their challenge. The Supreme Court must now decide whether the petitioners have sufficiently alleged a concrete injury to establish standing to challenge Illinois's election procedures.
- Does the petitioners' claim that their votes are diluted or that they must expend additional campaign resources constitute a sufficient injury for Article III standing?
- How do the Elections and Electors Clauses of the U.S. Constitution relate to state laws governing the timing of ballot receipt and counting?
- What is the scope of federal preemption over state election laws, particularly concerning the definition of 'Election Day'?
- What is the appropriate standard for determining standing in cases challenging state election procedures?
AI brief written by gemini-2.5-flash from the questions presented and the Oyez facts on 2026-10-02. Commentary only; it is not an input to the model.
Question presented, as filed
Federal law sets the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the federal Election Day. 2 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 7; and 3 U.S.C. § 1. Several states, including Illinois, have enacted state laws that allow ballots to be received and counted after Election Day. Petitioners contend these state laws are preempted under the Elections and Electors Clauses. Petitioners sued to enjoin Illinois' law allowing ballots to be received up to fourteen days after Election Day. The sole question presented here is whether Petitioners, as federal candidates, have pleaded sufficient factual allegations to show Article III standing to challenge state time, place, and manner regulations concerning their federal elections.
Facts of the case (Oyez)
Michael Bost, a multi-term U.S. Representative from Illinois’s 12th District, along with Laura Pollastrini and Susan Sweeney, political activists who served as presidential electors in 2020, challenged Illinois’s mail-in ballot receipt procedure. Under Illinois law, election officials can receive and count mail-in ballots for up to fourteen days after Election Day if the ballots are postmarked or certified by Election Day. Plaintiffs argued this procedure violates federal election statutes by impermissibly extending Election Day beyond the federally mandated date. They claimed the counting of these “untimely” ballots dilutes their votes and forces them to expend additional campaign resources to monitor ballot counting for two weeks after Election Day. Plaintiffs filed suit in May 2022 against the Illinois State Board of Elections and its Executive Director. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the case, finding that Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. The court also rejected their claims on the merits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.
The nine
Each justice's predicted vote and the record behind it: how often they have voted for the petitioner overall, in Judicial Power cases, and when the lower court ruled conservative; and, once argued, how many questions they put to each side (the side a justice questions more tends to lose their vote). The note under each row is the AI brief's reading, commentary rather than model input.
| Justice | Predicted | Overall | This issue | Lower court conservative | At argument | Voted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
John G. Roberts Republican appointee · since OT2005 Chief Justice Roberts often emphasizes judicial restraint and the importance of proper standing, and his jurisprudence suggests a careful approach to federal court intervention in state matters, while also upholding federal supremacy where clearly established. | 69% Bost | 68% for the petitioner · 1,512 votes | 69% Judicial Power · 197 votes | 61% lower court conservative · 734 votes | 20 / 12 questions at Bost / Illinois | Bost ✓ |
Clarence Thomas Republican appointee · since OT1991 Justice Thomas is a strong proponent of originalism and textualism, and he may scrutinize the plain language of the federal election statutes and constitutional clauses to determine if a concrete injury for standing has been alleged. | 56% Bost | 59% for the petitioner · 2,801 votes | 57% Judicial Power · 388 votes | 43% lower court conservative · 1,365 votes | 7 / 2 questions at Bost / Illinois | Bost ✓ |
Samuel A. Alito Republican appointee · since OT2005 Justice Alito often takes a strict view on standing requirements and has shown a willingness to interpret federal election laws robustly, which could lead him to carefully consider the petitioners' claims of injury. | 71% Bost | 62% for the petitioner · 1,469 votes | 65% Judicial Power · 190 votes | 48% lower court conservative · 722 votes | 6 / 22 questions at Bost / Illinois | Bost ✓ |
Sonia Sotomayor Democratic appointee · since OT2009 Justice Sotomayor generally takes a broader view of standing, particularly in cases involving civil rights or voting, and may be more inclined to find that the petitioners have alleged a sufficient injury to proceed. | 56% Bost | 61% for the petitioner · 1,192 votes | 58% Judicial Power · 149 votes | 76% lower court conservative · 594 votes | 20 / 0 questions at Bost / Illinois | Illinois State Board of Elections ✗ |
Elena Kagan Democratic appointee · since OT2010 Justice Kagan often considers the practical implications of legal rulings and may look at the real-world impact of the Illinois law on federal elections and the petitioners' ability to participate effectively. | 59% Bost | 63% for the petitioner · 1,072 votes | 61% Judicial Power · 137 votes | 75% lower court conservative · 543 votes | 11 / 6 questions at Bost / Illinois | Bost ✓ |
Neil M. Gorsuch Republican appointee · since OT2016 Justice Gorsuch, known for his textualist approach, would likely focus on the precise wording of Article III and the relevant election statutes to determine if standing is met, potentially favoring a strict interpretation of injury. | 71% Bost | 65% for the petitioner · 592 votes | 69% Judicial Power · 83 votes | 59% lower court conservative · 286 votes | 11 / 17 questions at Bost / Illinois | Bost ✓ |
Brett M. Kavanaugh Republican appointee · since OT2018 Justice Kavanaugh often emphasizes the importance of clear rules and has shown an interest in ensuring the integrity of elections, which could lead him to carefully consider the petitioners' claims of harm. | 71% Bost | 69% for the petitioner · 498 votes | 73% Judicial Power · 62 votes | 62% lower court conservative · 244 votes | 26 / 26 questions at Bost / Illinois | Bost ✓ |
Amy Coney Barrett Republican appointee · since OT2020 Justice Barrett, a textualist, would likely analyze the specific language of the standing requirements and the federal election laws, and her approach often aligns with a more conservative view of judicial power. | 59% Bost | 66% for the petitioner · 360 votes | 71% Judicial Power · 49 votes | 60% lower court conservative · 178 votes | 6 / 0 questions at Bost / Illinois | Bost ✓ |
Ketanji Brown Jackson Democratic appointee · since OT2022 Justice Jackson often considers the practical effects of legal decisions on individuals and the democratic process, and she may be inclined to find standing if the petitioners can demonstrate a tangible impact on their electoral participation. | 59% Bost | 59% for the petitioner · 244 votes | 60% Judicial Power · 37 votes | 80% lower court conservative · 127 votes | 25 / 14 questions at Bost / Illinois | Illinois State Board of Elections ✗ |
Rates are each justice's own participation record in the Supreme Court Database, the same history the model trains on; a rate on fewer than five votes is not shown. The predicted vote is VotePredictor SCOTUS' per-justice probability from the served model, which also reads the bench-wide transcript signal and how long each side held the podium.
Every call this term, justice by justice · how the model is built and its record. Data as of 2026-10-02.