A Procedural Ruling With Major Implications for the 2028 Election Cycle
In a consequential procedural ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that a federal candidate has standing to challenge state mail-in ballot rules, reopening a category of election-law disputes that courts have routinely dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The decision, Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, No. 24-568 (decided January 14, 2026), does not resolve the legality of Illinois’s mail-in voting system. Instead, it addresses a threshold issue that has shaped election litigation for years: who is permitted to bring these cases at all.
Background of the Case
The plaintiffs include Michael J. Bost, a sitting U.S. Representative and federal candidate, who challenged Illinois election rules allowing mail-in ballots to be counted up to 14 days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked by Election Day.
Lower courts dismissed the challenge, holding that the alleged harms—such as vote dilution, uncertainty in election outcomes, and unequal application of election rules—were too speculative or generalized to establish Article III standing.
The Supreme Court disagreed.
What the Court Decided — and What It Did Not
In a 7–2 decision, the Court held that federal candidates may have standing to challenge state election procedures governing elections in which they are competing when they plausibly allege:
- Competitive injury caused by altered election rules
- Unequal application of voting standards
- Structural changes to election administration that affect their campaigns
Crucially, the Court emphasized that candidates are not “ordinary observers” of elections, but regulated participants subject to the rules being challenged.
The Court did not decide whether Illinois’s ballot-counting timeline violates federal law or the Constitution. That question now returns to the lower courts for substantive review.
Why This Ruling Matters
1. The Standing Wall Has Been Lowered
For years, courts avoided election-law disputes by ruling that no one had standing to sue—effectively shielding election systems from federal review. Bost signals a retreat from that approach, particularly where candidates allege concrete competitive harms.
2. More Election Rules Will Face Merits Review
By clearing the standing hurdle, the Court forces lower courts to engage with substantive claims involving:
- The Elections Clause
- Equal Protection
- Due Process
- Federal statutes setting a uniform Election Day
This shifts election litigation from procedural dismissal to constitutional analysis.
3. 2028 Litigation Is Now Likely
States that expanded or modified mail-in voting procedures after 2020 should expect renewed legal challenges—this time with plaintiffs who can survive early dismissal.
Broader Constitutional Questions Ahead
Although Bost is a standing case, it tees up unresolved questions that may soon reach the Court:
- Does counting ballots after Election Day conflict with federal election statutes?
- Can administrative discretion override legislative election frameworks?
- Do unequal ballot-handling standards violate Equal Protection?
- Do federal candidates have heightened interests in uniform election rules?
These issues are now more likely to receive full judicial consideration rather than procedural avoidance.
A Shift in the Court’s Election-Law Posture
The decision aligns with a broader trend in which the Court has expressed skepticism toward doctrines that prevent judicial review of structurally significant constitutional questions through standing and justiciability barriers alone.
Rather than declaring election disputes “non-justiciable,” the Court appears increasingly willing to allow adversarial litigation to test the legality of election systems—particularly when federal offices are involved.
Conclusion
Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections does not invalidate mail-in voting or resolve ballot-counting disputes. But it fundamentally changes who gets to challenge election rules in federal court.
By reopening the courthouse doors to candidates previously turned away on standing grounds, the Supreme Court has ensured that election-law disputes heading into 2028 will be decided not only at the ballot box—but through constitutional litigation.
Why This Matters for Voters
Most Supreme Court election cases focus on what the rules are. This one focuses on who is allowed to challenge them—and that difference matters more than it sounds.
1. Courts Can No Longer Avoid Election Cases as Easily
For years, many election-law lawsuits were dismissed before judges ever reached the substance, often because courts said no one had proper “standing” to sue. This ruling makes it harder for courts to sidestep disputes that affect how elections are run.
For voters: disputes over ballot rules are more likely to receive real judicial review instead of being dismissed on technical grounds.
2. Election Rules May Be Reviewed Before Elections, Not After
Standing barriers often forced challenges to wait until after elections—when courts are reluctant to intervene. By recognizing candidate standing, courts may now hear cases earlier, before rules shape election outcomes.
For voters: fewer last-minute rule changes, less uncertainty, and clearer standards going into Election Day.
3. Ballot-Counting Rules Could Face Uniformity Scrutiny
The case opens the door for courts to examine whether ballots are counted under consistent rules, particularly when deadlines or verification standards differ across counties or categories of voters.
For voters: greater transparency and consistency in how ballots are accepted and counted.
4. Federal Elections May Be Treated Differently
Because the plaintiffs were federal candidates, courts may give closer scrutiny to election rules affecting congressional and presidential races, especially where federal law is involved.
For voters: federal election procedures may become more standardized, even when states administer the process.
5. This Is About Process, Not Parties
The ruling does not favor mail-in voting or oppose it. It does not decide whose rules are “right.” It decides whether courts must hear the challenge at all.
For voters: the focus shifts from political debate to legal accountability—how rules are made, applied, and reviewed.
Bottom Line
This case doesn’t change how you vote tomorrow.
It changes whether election rules can be meaningfully challenged before they shape the outcome.
That affects trust, transparency, and the integrity of future elections—regardless of party or position.
The People's Law Review 