Docket Report: Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections

Update 11/1/25: Experience-3 predictions closely resemble earlier predictions: 69 percent chance of reversal. Likely dissent from Thomas; Kagan joins a conservative majority bloc; close votes from Jackson, Sotomayor, and Barrett.

Update 10/22/25: Case-level predictions shift only modestly with the updated model (experience-2), at least after argument. After argument the predicted reversal probability is 71 percent. But votes shift toward affirm for several justices, so this may be a closer vote than thought earlier.

Initial report: Standing is a difficult doctrine that is often accused of being applied inconsistently and opportunistically by the courts. One of the basic ideas of standing is that a party bringing a claim must be properly motivated to litigate the case. Our system relies on properly motivated adversaries to function. If someone is not motivated, they may not litigate with sufficient vigor, and that can lead to bad legal precedents. The main response to this concern in standing is to ask that the plaintiff suffer a concrete and particularized injury related to the action being challenged. Is the party actually harmed in a specific and real way? If so, runs the theory, they will litigate with vigor. (There are other motivations for standing, but that is a main one.) This case concerns whether a Republican candidate for federal office, Bost, has standing to challenge Illinois’ allowance of mail in ballots for 14 days after election day. He lost his election by more than the margin of those late votes. But he argues that he spent money on campaign resources and that, even if the late ballots were not a but-for cause of his loss, they put him at a disadvantage. The Court considers whether that form of injury is sufficient for standing purposes in this case. The lower court said that he did not have standing—the injury was insufficient. Prior to oral argument, the model thought the Court would go along (reversing with only 47 percent probability). However, argument shifted the model substantially towards reversal: the odds of reversal now stand at about 70 percent. The Court seems ready to loosen standing for political candidates. We saw notable shifts towards reversal from almost all the justices. According to the model, the only justices who might lean to affirm the no-standing decision are Sotomayor, Thomas, and Jackson.