Bost v. Illinois Bd. of Elections · ¶44

Justice Barrett rightly rejects today's bespoke candidate-standing rule. See ante, at 86 (opinion concurring in judgment). Yet her pocketbook theory would allow political candidates to spend their way past Article III's injury- in-fact requirement, despite our clear admonition that plaintiffs “cannot manufacture standing by choosing to make expenditures based on hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending.” Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 402 (2013).

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.