Bost v. Illinois Bd. of Elections · ¶69

The Court's suggestion that it is beyond a judge's competency to evaluate whether an election rule causes a substantial risk of electoral loss, ante, at 80–82, is therefore both puzzling and unfounded. A “substantial risk” of future harm has been the Article III imminent-injury standard for decades. See Clapper, 568 U. S., at 414–415, n. 5 (collecting cases applying this standard). And federal courts, including this one, have routinely applied that standard in a variety of circumstances—essentially whenever a plaintiff maintains that state action is likely to harm him in the future. See, e. g., Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U. S. 43, 57–58 (2024) (First Amendment challenge related to social media content moderation); Department of Commerce, 588 U. S., at 766–767 (Administrative Procedure Act challenge to changes to the census); Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U. S. 139, 153–155…

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