Bost v. Illinois Bd. of Elections · ¶57

The Court's standing analysis elides all this by employing the commonsense intuition that, “[w]in or lose, candidates suffer when the process departs from the law.” Ante, at 77. But how is that a particularized injury? Anyone and everyone who is governed by law is similarly harmed by any departure from the law's requirements. Moreover, this Court has repeatedly instructed that litigants “may not sue based only on an `asserted right to have the Government act in accordance with law.' ” FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U. S. 367, 381 (2024) (quoting Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 754 (1984)); see also Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 488 (1923) (rejecting theory that taxpayers have standing to challenge an allegedly unlawful government action requiring the use of public funds because “[t]he party who invokes the [judicial] power must be able to show . . . that he has…

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