U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections
Oct 8, 2025
Mr. Clement, an experienced appellate litigator, represents the petitioners arguing that federal candidates should have standing to challenge state election laws impacting mail-in ballots. He discusses how extended counting periods lead to vote dilution and increased campaign costs. Mr. Talent defends a narrower view of standing, suggesting it should only apply when ballots could genuinely affect outcomes. Meanwhile, Ms. Oates argues for traditional standing rules, critiquing claims of speculative harm. The debate raises questions about candidate rights and practical implications for electoral integrity.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Candidates' Unique Stake In Election Rules
- Candidates have a distinct, concrete stake in election rules because those rules determine which ballots are counted and can change outcomes.
- Mr. Clement argues that pocketbook injury from extended campaigns alone can satisfy Article III standing.
Court Demands Non‑Speculative Competitive Harm
- The Court pressed petitioners to show plausible competitive harm rather than mere preference for a larger margin.
- Justices emphasized that standing requires non-speculative, concrete injury, not simple disappointment.
Plead A Plausible Electoral Disadvantage
- A workable standard: allege a substantial risk that the new rule puts you at an electoral disadvantage relative to the old rule.
- Provide some factual support (polls, prior results, expert views) to make that risk plausible at pleading stage.