Trump v. California · ¶91

One case that the Court’s order does not mention is our ruling just last Term in Bost v. Illinois Bd. of Elections, 607 U. S. 71 (2026). In Bost, we assessed the standing of a political candidate who wanted to challenge a new election rule that extended a ballot-receipt deadline. Id., at 71–72. The Court concluded that political candidates who challenge election-rule changes easily clear Article III’s harm hurdle based solely on the risk that an unlawful rule poses to their general interest in a fair election—i.e., they do not need to demonstrate any other actual injury. See id., at 77. The majority holds the opposite now. Today, less than a year after issuing Bost, the Court concludes that States with even greater fair-election interests do not have standing to sue even when the election-rule changes they seek to challenge pose significant risks of injury to those interests.

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.