Bost v. Illinois Bd. of Elections · ¶94

I am all for simplifying our standing law. See ante, at 83. But I am against doing so selectively; either Article III standing requires an actual or imminent injury in fact that is particularized to the plaintiff, or it does not. Bost has plainly failed to allege facts that support an inference of standing under our established precedents. By carving out a bespoke rule for candidate-plaintiffs—granting them standing “to challenge the rules that govern the counting of votes,” simply and solely because they are “candidate[s]” for office, ibid.—the Court now complicates and destabilizes both our standing law and America's electoral processes.

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