Election Integrity Win: SCOTUS Rules Congressman Has Standing to Challenge IL Mail-In Vote Counting Law

While Supreme Court watchers remain on pins and needles over the anticipated decisions in Callais (Voting Rights Act) and Learning Resources/V.O.S. Selections (tariffs), the Court left them hanging on Wednesday, handing down opinions in three other cases — two dealing with criminal procedure, and one regarding election procedure.

That third one, Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, is viewed as a victory for election integrity. The case was brought by Republican Congressman Mike Bost (IL-12) and two presidential elector nominees in 2022 against the Illinois State Board of Elections and its executive director, challenging an Illinois law that requires election officials to count mail-in ballots postmarked or certified no later than election day and received within two weeks of election day. Bost and his fellow plaintiffs contend that counting ballots received after election day violates federal law, specifically, the statutory provisions setting election day as the Tuesday following the first Monday in November.

U.S. District Judge John Kness (Northern District of Illinois) dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. But the Supreme Court, on Wednesday, reversed and remanded the case, holding that Bost, as a candidate for office, "has standing to challenge the rules that govern the counting of votes in his election." (Because they found that Bost had standing, the Court did not address whether his co-plaintiffs did, as only one plaintiff needs standing for a suit to proceed.)

The decision was 7-2, with Chief Justice John Roberts authoring the majority opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Amy Coney Barrett issued a separate opinion, concurring in the judgment, and Justice Elena Kagan joined in that. The dissent was authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor joining in that.

Key to the majority's decision:

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. Their interest extends to the integrity of the election—and the democratic process by which they earn or lose the support of the people they seek to represent.

Barrett, as noted above, concurred in the judgment, but she believes the majority's "candidate-status" rule is too broad. Instead, she finds an alternative, more narrow basis for Bost's standing:

In my view, Congressman Bost has standing because he has suffered a traditional pocketbook injury, not because of his status as a candidate.

Jackson's dissent hinges on her contention that Bost's claims are speculative and generalized.

I am all for simplifying our standing law. See ante, at 10. But I am against doing so selectively; either Article III standing requires an actual or imminent injury in fact that is particularized to the plaintiff, or it does not. Bost has plainly failed to allege facts that support an inference of standing under our established precedents. By carving out a bespoke rule for candidate-plaintiffs—granting them standing “to challenge the rules that govern the counting of votes,” simply and solely because they are “candidate[s]” for office, ibid.—the Court now complicates and destabilizes both our standing law and America’s electoral processes.

Of note, Jackson's dissent, at 20 pages, is lengthier than the combined majority and concurring opinions.

New: Supreme Court Appears Poised to Safeguard Girls' Athletics

Following the Court's decision, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon praised the ruling, noting that she had co-authored the amicus brief filed by the U.S. in the matter.

Proud to have co-authored the US amicus brief supporting standing in this case — now federal candidates may challenge mail-in ballot procedures. #WINNING!! @CivilRights Great outcome! 6-3 pic.twitter.com/wJnlatF1Sx
— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) January 14, 2026

The Republican National Committee also issued a statement from Chairman Joe Gruters regarding the decision:

Today’s Supreme Court decision is a major win for election integrity and basic accountability,” said Chairman Gruters. “Federal law is clear: Election Day should be the deadline for ballots to be received, which is why the RNC filed an amicus brief supporting Congressman Bost’s challenge to Illinois’ ridiculous practice of counting ballots received up to two weeks after an election. Today, the Court confirmed candidates can challenge unlawful election procedures in their own races – a key step toward ending this unlawful scheme.

And Rep. Bost shared a celebratory tweet following the decision — but also promised more on the fight for election integrity.

We have won this initial battle, but the fight for election integrity continues. Stay tuned for more information on where we go from here!
— Mike Bost (@BostForCongress) January 14, 2026

We'll be talking with Bost Thursday morning on Mike Ferguson in the Morning, and I look forward to hearing more from him about what this decision means — for him personally and for election integrity in general.

Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy RedState’s coverage and analysis of legal matters? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.

Join RedState VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!