Supreme Court Revives GOP Congressman’s Absentee Ballot Challenge

Jan 15, 2026, 2:21 AM

Hover over text to view sources

The Supreme Court has revived a lawsuit by Republican Congressman Michael Bost challenging an Illinois law that permits mail-in ballots to be counted up to two weeks after Election Day, provided they are postmarked by the election date. This ruling, which passed with a 7-2 majority, could significantly impact future election litigation by allowing candidates to challenge voting regulations even if they have not demonstrated a direct effect on their electoral outcomes.

Bost's legal battle began in 2022 when he argued that the Illinois law violated federal statutes that establish a uniform day for federal elections. He contended that the law diluted the value of votes and imposed unnecessary costs on his campaign, as he had to keep staff on payroll to monitor the counting of late ballots. The Supreme Court's decision allows Bost to proceed with his case, which had previously been dismissed by lower courts due to a lack of standing.

Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that candidates have a vested interest in the rules governing vote counting, stating, "Win or lose, candidates suffer when the process departs from the law." He expressed concern that requiring candidates to show a potential impact on their election outcomes before being allowed to sue could lead to chaotic legal entanglements during critical election periods.

The implications of this ruling extend beyond Bost's case. Legal analysts warn that it could open the floodgates for similar lawsuits, potentially leading to a surge in election-related litigation. Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst, noted that this decision might allow candidates to challenge various voting rules, thereby injecting uncertainty into the electoral process in the days and weeks following elections.

Bost's argument for standing was based on the premise that candidates should inherently have the right to challenge election laws that affect their races. He claimed that the Illinois law forced him to incur additional expenses, which constituted a concrete injury. However, dissenting justices, including Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, cautioned that this ruling could destabilize the electoral process by encouraging more litigation.

The case also highlights a broader trend in which candidates and political parties are increasingly seeking judicial intervention in election-related matters. The Supreme Court's decision to hear Bost's appeal reflects ongoing tensions surrounding voting rights and election integrity, particularly in the wake of the contentious 2020 presidential election.

As the legal landscape surrounding election laws continues to evolve, this ruling may set a precedent for future challenges to voting regulations across the country. The Supreme Court is expected to hear additional cases related to mail-in ballots and election laws in the coming months, further shaping the discourse on electoral integrity and candidate rights.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's revival of Bost's absentee ballot lawsuit marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over election laws in the United States. As candidates gain more leeway to challenge voting regulations, the potential for increased litigation looms, raising questions about the stability and integrity of future elections.

Senate Votes Against War Powers Resolution on Venezuela

The Senate voted 51-50 to block a resolution that would have restricted President Trump's military actions in Venezuela. Vice President JD Vance cast the tie-breaking vote after two Republican senators reversed their support for the measure, following pressure from the Trump administration.

Trump Claims Iran Executions 'Stopped' Amid Ongoing Protests

President Trump stated that he has been informed that executions in Iran have ceased, despite Iranian officials indicating plans for rapid trials and executions of detained protesters. The situation remains tense as the US considers its response to Iran's crackdown on dissent.

Supreme Court Allows Candidates to Challenge Election Laws

The US Supreme Court has ruled that candidates can legally challenge election laws before voting begins, a decision that may lead to an increase in pre-election lawsuits. The ruling, which stemmed from a case involving Illinois Rep. Michael Bost, establishes that candidates have a personal stake in the election rules that govern their races.

DOJ Interviews Democratic Lawmakers Over 'Illegal Orders' Video

The Department of Justice is investigating six Democratic lawmakers who appeared in a video urging military personnel to disobey illegal orders. The inquiry has drawn accusations of political harassment from the lawmakers, who assert they were merely restating legal principles.

Federal Judges Approve California's New Democratic Map for 2026

A federal three-judge panel has allowed California to implement a new congressional map designed to favor Democrats in the upcoming 2026 elections. The ruling, which comes after a voter-approved initiative, is seen as a significant victory for the Democratic Party amid ongoing redistricting battles across the country.