Judicial Watch Announces U.S. Supreme Court Brief in Historic Election Integrity Case

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it filed its opening brief to the Supreme Court of the United States in a case filed on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors, who are before the court to vindicate their standing to challenge an Illinois law extending Election Day for 14 days beyond the date established by federal law (Rep.Michael J. Bost, Laura Pollastrini, and Susan Sweeney v. The Illinois State Board of Elections and Bernadette Matthews (No. 1:22-cv-02754, 23-2644, 24-568)).

In June, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Judicial Watch’s appeal of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in this case. The lower courts had denied that Bost and the electors had standing to challenge Illinois’ practice of counting ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day. (The Election Day lawsuit was initially filed on May 25, 2022.)

The Judicial Watch Supreme Court brief states:

Federal law sets the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the federal Election Day.

***

Candidates have an obvious interest in the lawfulness and fairness of the rules that govern the elections into which they pour their time and resources. They also have an obvious interest “in ensuring that the final vote tally accurately reflects the legally valid votes cast.”

***

Candidates pour enormous resources into running for election and have an obvious interest in the rules that dictate how long their races will last and how the ballots will be counted. They also have a distinct interest “in ensuring that the final vote tally accurately reflects the legally valid votes cast.”

“Judicial Watch’s legal team makes a simple and powerful argument to the Supreme Court: It is obvious that candidates have standing to challenge unlawful rules governing the elections into which they are pouring untold resources,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

In March 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declined to rehear its previous ruling in which it agreed with Judicial Watch that it was unlawful for Mississippi to count ballots that arrived after Election Day (Libertarian Party of Mississippi v Wetzel et al. (No. 1:24-cv-00037)).

Judicial Watch in March 2025 filed a federal lawsuit against California on behalf of U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa to prevent state election officials from extending Election Day for seven days beyond the date established by federal law. California counts ballots received up to seven days after Election Day (Darrell Issa v. Shirley N. Weber, in her official capacity (No. 3:25-cv-00598)).

Paul Clement, who has argued more than 100 cases before the Supreme Court, is representing Congressman Bost and the electors with Judicial Watch before the Supreme Court. Clement is former solicitor general under President George W. Bush from 2005-2008 and is widely regarded as among the top Supreme Court litigators in the country.

Robert Popper, a Judicial Watch senior attorney, leads its election law program. Popper was previously in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, where he managed voting rights investigations, litigations, consent decrees, and settlements in dozens of states.

T. Russell Nobile, a Judicial Watch senior attorney, is part of Judicial Watch’s voting integrity efforts and focuses on campaign and voting issues, civil rights issues, constitutional law, official misconduct by public institutions and officials, and other issues.

Other examples of Judicial Watch’s election law work include:

• In April 2025, Judicial Watch announced that its analysis and use of voter registration lists has led to lawsuits and legal actions under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) that have resulted in the removal of five million names from voter rolls in nearly a dozen states and localities over the last several years.
• The U.S. Department of Justice recently filed a statement of interest in a separate Judicial Watch lawsuit that that seeks to force the clean-up of Illinois’ election rolls as federal law requires (Judicial Watch, Inc., et al. v. Illinois State Board of Elections, et al. (No. 1:24-cv-01867)).
• In October 2024, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on behalf of itself, the Constitution Party of Oregon, and two lawfully registered voters of Umatilla County and Marion County, Oregon, against Lavonne Griffin-Valade in her official capacity as Oregon Secretary of State and the State of Oregon, to make “a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters” from the voter rolls as required by the NVRA (Judicial Watch, et al. v. The State of Oregon et al. (No. 6:24-cv-01783)).
• In May 2024, Judicial Watch sued California to clean up its voter rolls. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Judicial Watch and the Libertarian Party of California, similarly asks the court to compel California to make “a reasonable effort” to remove ineligible registrants from the rolls as required by federal law (Judicial Watch Inc. and the Libertarian Party of CA v. Shirley Weber et al. (No. 2:24-cv-03750)).

###

The post Judicial Watch Announces U.S. Supreme Court Brief in Historic Election Integrity Case appeared first on Judicial Watch.