Supreme Court Affirms Candidates Can Challenge Election Laws

In a surprisingly sweeping opinion issued Wednesday, a five-justice majority in Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections ruled that candidates have standing to challenge election rules regardless of whether those rules harm their electoral prospects. The vote was 7-2 in favor of Bost, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, agreeing with the result but not the reasoning. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined in dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, would have affirmed the lower courts' denial of standing. Under the 'case or controversy' clause of Article III, plaintiffs must allege concrete and particularized injury. The majority stated, '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.' Justice John Roberts emphasized that a candidate's interest in electoral integrity 'differs in kind' from the public's interest. Justice Barrett concurred, arguing candidates suffer a 'pocketbook injury' from costs incurred to comply with contested rules. Justice Jackson dissented, comparing the ruling to rejected 'citizen' and 'taxpayer' standing doctrines, warning against broadening access to federal courts.