- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- within Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment and Tax topic(s)
- with Finance and Tax Executives
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy, Banking & Credit and Metals & Mining industries
On January 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that political candidates can bring lawsuits over election rules. In Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 607 U.S. ___ (2026), the Court held that a candidate for office has the right to challenge state rules about how votes are counted, even if the candidate cannot prove the rule will change the outcome of an election.
The Case
Illinois law allows election officials to count mail-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day and received up to two weeks later. See Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 10, §§5/19–8(c), 5/18A–15(a). Congressman Michael Bost and other candidates sued the Illinois State Board of Elections, arguing that counting ballots received after Election Day violates a federal law that sets a single national Election Day. Lower courts dismissed the case, reasoning that the candidates lacked standing because they had not shown that the rule would actually cause them to lose or materially affect the election results.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts' interpretation. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts explained that candidates have a direct and personal interest in the rules that govern how votes are counted in their elections. That interest goes beyond simply winning or losing. According to the Court, candidates are entitled to a fair and lawful election process. When election rules allegedly depart from the law, candidates are harmed because the fairness and public confidence in the election can be undermined even if the final outcome stays the same. The Court also rejected the idea that candidates must show a real risk of losing an election before they can sue. Requiring that kind of proof, the Court said, would force judges to guess how elections will turn out and would push lawsuits to the very end of the election cycle, when court involvement is most disruptive.
Justice Barrett and Kagan concurred with the result but for a narrower reason, focusing on the campaign costs candidates incur to monitor vote counting. Justice Jackson and Sotomayor dissented, arguing that concerns about election fairness are shared by voters generally and should not automatically give candidates the right to sue.
Overall Takeaway
The Supreme Court did not decide whether Illinois's vote-counting rule is lawful. Instead, it ruled that the candidates are allowed to bring their challenge and have it heard on the merits. The decision makes it easier for candidates to challenge election procedures before an election occurs, rather than after votes are counted. As a result, Bost is likely to play an important role in future election-law disputes and in how courts handle challenges to election administration rules.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
