Bost v. Illinois Bd. of Elections · ¶75

While more tethered to our standing precedents, Justice Barrett’s pocketbook-injury theory is also insufficient to support Bost's standing. This is because it is well settled— in light of our decision in Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U. S. 398—that plaintiffs “cannot manufacture standing by choosing to make expenditures based on hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending.” Id., at 402. Bost's allegations establish only a hypothetical future harm, even when crediting them as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor.

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