Bost v. Illinois Bd. of Elections · ¶81

This means that Bost's pocketbook injury is similar in all relevant respects to that presented by the plaintiffs in Clap per: He is spending money to ward off speculative future injury. His case differs from Clapper only insofar as the source of the harm he is seeking to alleviate is not the (uncertain) application of the regulation itself, but the (uncertain) effects of that regulation. In other words, both Bost and the plaintiffs in Clapper spent money to mitigate a risk of injury that was only theoretical, not substantial. And neither can leverage unnecessary expenditures into Article III standing.

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