October Term 2025 · Docket 24-568
Can a Candidate Challenge a Rule That Counts Mail Ballots Two Weeks After Election Day?
Illinois candidates ask the Supreme Court to let them sue over a state rule that counts mail-in ballots received up to two weeks after Election Day. The state board argues the candidates lack a legally recognized injury and cannot challenge the rule.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Justice Jackson questioned the sides that brought the case' harm theory. She said harm, not a preference between vote percentages, is what standing requires.
Justice Kavanaugh asked what remedy would exist if a losing candidate sued after the election and the Court then found the rule illegal. He asked how such a post-election challenge would play out.
Justice Sotomayor distinguished the rule from rules aimed at candidates. She said voters remain free to vote for candidates, so candidates lose no right to reach their voters.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 116, lines 33-47 — Transcript, file page 116, lines 33-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 39-51 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 39-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 7-29 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 7-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 15-33 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 15-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 55-9 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 55-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 35-55 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 35-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 53-7 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 53-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 17-51 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 17-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 53-11 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 53-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 13-17 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 13-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 13-51 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 13-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 11-31 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 11-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 27-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 45-53 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 45-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 43-53 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 43-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 13-39 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 13-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 33-47 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 33-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 76, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 76, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 78, lines 13-17 — Transcript, file page 78, lines 13-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 78, lines 53-51 — Transcript, file page 78, lines 53-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 9-41 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 9-41
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This article explains the dispute now before the Supreme Court. It describes what each side wants and the concerns raised by justices during argument.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 116, lines 33-47 — Transcript, file page 116, lines 33-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 53-7 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 53-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 53-11 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 53-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 76, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 76, lines 17-11
How the case got here
The case, Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, reached the Supreme Court after disputes over candidate standing. Illinois counts mail-in ballots received up to two weeks after Election Day. the sides that brought the case argue that under federal law, that window is two weeks too long. They say Illinois is counting unlawful ballots.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 78, lines 53-51 — Transcript, file page 78, lines 53-51
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the Court to recognize that candidates have standing to challenge election rules. They argue candidates are forced to gamble that late-counted ballots could change their election's outcome.
The Illinois State Board of Elections wants the Court to reject the candidates' standing theory. It argues the candidates rely on any rule possibly changing a single vote, not a recognized harm.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 116, lines 33-47 — Transcript, file page 116, lines 33-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 53-7 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 53-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 53-11 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 53-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 76, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 76, lines 17-11
What each side says
the sides that brought the case' lawyer argued candidates can challenge ballot validity rules when the ballots could affect the outcome. He said the rule forces candidates to gamble on late ballots affecting their elections.
The board's lawyer argued the sides that brought the case avoid the record developed below. She said their theory would let candidates challenge any election rule because any rule could shift one vote in the final tally.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 116, lines 33-47 — Transcript, file page 116, lines 33-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 53-7 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 53-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 53-11 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 53-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 76, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 76, lines 17-11
What the justices asked
Justice Thomas asked how the Court could know a the side that brought the case faces a risk of competitive harm.
Justice Sotomayor questioned the sides that brought the case' theory. She said the rule regulates voters, not candidates, so it is not a direct regulation of candidates. She added that voters still vote for candidates, so candidates are not deprived of their right to reach voters.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 39-51 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 39-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 7-29 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 7-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 15-33 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 15-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 55-9 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 55-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 35-55 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 35-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 17-51 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 17-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 13-17 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 13-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 13-51 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 13-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 11-31 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 11-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 27-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 45-53 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 45-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 43-53 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 43-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 13-39 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 13-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 33-47 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 33-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 78, lines 13-17 — Transcript, file page 78, lines 13-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 9-41 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 9-41
Why it matters
The ruling could decide whether candidates may sue over election rules before or after votes are counted. It may shape how late-arriving mail ballots are treated nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 116, lines 33-47 — Transcript, file page 116, lines 33-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 53-7 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 53-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 53-11 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 53-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 76, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 76, lines 17-11
What the Court decided
A candidate running for office may sue to challenge the rules for counting votes in his own election, without first proving the rule could make him lose.
The Seventh Circuit's judgment was reversed and the case was sent back for more proceedings.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 2, lines 1-1 — Opinion, file page 2, lines 1-1
- Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 4, lines 1-1 — Opinion, file page 4, lines 1-1
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 116, lines 33-47 — Transcript, file page 116, lines 33-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 53-7 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 53-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 53-11 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 53-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 76, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 76, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 116, lines 33-47 — Transcript, file page 116, lines 33-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 53-7 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 53-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 53-11 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 53-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 76, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 76, lines 17-11
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Removed an unsupported statement that the Court had not ruled; the available source set did not establish that absence.
- Revision 3 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Corrected unsupported no-ruling language and clarified that the article's disposition summary is incomplete.
- Revision 4 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Added the holding and disposition from the verified official Court opinion.
- Revision 5 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.