U.S. Supreme Court to hear Representative Bost's case on mail-in voting
CNI reports Rep. Bost and a pair of Illinois primary delegates for President Donald Trump sued the Illinois State Board of Elections in 2022, arguing that the state's law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted after Election Day violates the federal law establishing an 'Election Day.' Both a lower federal trial court and federal appeals court have ruled Bost lacked standing to sue.
Crews work to repair sink hole near Oak Hill Cemetery
The Supreme Court said its ruling will focus on whether Rep. Bost, of Murphysboro, in his role as a political candidate, has legal grounds to sue over a state's election law, rather than if Illinois' mail-in voting law is legal, because the appeal challenges lower court rulings that Rep. Bost allegedly did not have legal grounds to sue.
USI to propose no tuition increase at public forum June 5
According to CNI, a favorable ruling for Rep. Bost by the Supreme Court could force lower courts to issue a ruling about Illinois' law. It's not clear when the nation's high court will hear Bost's case. The court is scheduled to begin hearing oral arguments in October.
According to this report, under Illinois law, ballots postmarked by Election Day can be counted as late as 14 days after the election as they arrive at local election offices. Rep. Bost's case argues this violates the federal law establishing Election Day by allowing votes to arrive and be counted for two weeks after the polls close.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
12 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Supreme Court's Peacemaker Speaks Out—'Scary Stuff'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has spoken out about the spike in threats against judges, calling it "scary stuff." Judges "just need to do what they are obligated to do, which is to do law in the best way they know how to do, make independent, reasoned judgments based on precedent, based on other law, to not be inhibited by any of these threats," Kagan said at a judiciary conference on Thursday, according to The Washington Post. Newsweek contacted Kagan for further comment via an email to a Supreme Court spokesperson. Associate Justice Elena Kagan stands during a group photo of the Justices at the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. on April 23, 2021. Associate Justice Elena Kagan stands during a group photo of the Justices at the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. on April 23, 2021. Erin Schaff/Pool-Getty Images Why It Matters Threats against judges are on the rise, at a time when President Donald Trump and his allies have railed against judges who have blocked parts of Trump's agenda, including calling for some to be impeached. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in March issued a rare statement rejecting calls for impeaching judges. The U.S. Marshals Service investigated threats against 197 judges between March and late May this year—more than double the number of judges threatened in the previous five months, The Washington Post has reported. What To Know Kagan also said that the willingness of some to flout judicial rulings "is just not the way the system works." She said not specifically mention Trump, but said the biggest offenders were government officials, the Post reported. Kagan, who is part of the court's liberal wing, joined her liberal colleagues in criticizing the court's emergency rulings in favor of the Trump administration. But in several cases on the court's regular docket, she sided with the court's more conservative justices. She was in the majority in 83 percent of all cases—the fourth most frequently of the nine justices—and in 70 percent of nonunanimous cases in the 2024-25 term, according to SCOTUSblog's Stat Pack. "I think she tries to find common ground when she can," constitutional law professor Harold Krent said about Kagan on a recent episode of the Bloomberg Law podcast. "I think it is perhaps a positive institutional development, as she is, at least in my view, in some of her decisions, trying to, you know, establish that there is common ground amongst the so-called conservative and so-called liberal justices." What People Are Saying Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said, in part, during a judges' conference in Puerto Rico in May: "The attacks are not random. They seem designed to intimidate those of us who serve in this critical capacity." She added: "The threats and harassment are attacks on our democracy, on our system of government. And they ultimately risk undermining our Constitution and the rule of law." Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts warned last month that words from elected officials could lead to threats or acts of violence from others, saying: "It becomes wrapped up in the political dispute that a judge who's doing his or her job is part of the problem. And the danger, of course, is somebody might pick up on that. And we have had, of course, serious threats of violence and murder of judges just simply for doing their work. So I think the political people on both sides of the aisle need to keep that in mind." Trump said during a speech at a Michigan rally marking his first 100 days on office: "We cannot allow a handful of communist radical left judges to obstruct the enforcement of our laws and assume the duties that belong solely to the president of the United States. Judges are trying to take away the power given to the president to keep our country safe and it's not a good thing." What's Next Law enforcement continues to track and respond to threats against judges.
Axios
14 minutes ago
- Axios
Metro faces major shakeup as city waits for Supreme Court ruling in council size lawsuit
Metro leaders are one loss at the Tennessee Supreme Court away from having to completely remake Nashville's city government. The big picture: The size of the Metro Council would be reduced from its current 40 members to no more than 20 under a state law that has been the subject of a contentious two-year legal battle. Metro wants the Supreme Court to overturn a lower appeal's court's ruling upholding the law. The intrigue: The political reality around the court — all five members were appointed by Republican governors — makes the city's chances of a legal victory seem unlikely. It's possible the Supreme Court doesn't even take up the case. Between the lines: Since its formation in 1963, the Metro system of government favored the executive branch. With an unwieldy 40 members, legislative powers were watered down, and the mayor enjoyed significantly more control. Slashing the council in half could serve as a rebalancing. Flashback: In 2023, Republicans in the legislature passed a law capping the size of Metro Councils across the state at 20 members. Nashville's is the only such government in Tennessee with a council larger than 20, and some critics viewed the measure as retribution for its Metro Council refusing to bid on hosting the Republican National Convention in 2024. After a lower court panel ruled the law unconstitutional, the state won at the appeals court level and the law was upheld. State of play: City leaders insist they are not actively working on the details of reducing the council, but the uncertainty of the Supreme Court even taking up the case means behind-the-scenes conversations must begin. "For a matter of this complexity and potential magnitude, without presuming any particular outcome (in the legal challenge), as president of the Metro Council, it would be irresponsible of me not to be thinking through various scenarios and contingencies," Vice Mayor Angie Henderson tells Axios. "This moment requires thoughtfulness and prudence as we await the response of the Tennessee Supreme Court." What he's saying:"If we have to face the reality of a smaller council, there will be multiple voices in the room, including the Planning Department, the mayor, the vice mayor and the council itself," Metro legal director Wally Dietz tells Axios. "It's a very complicated legal process inside Metro. But, we're not there yet." What we're watching: Here are the monumental logistical questions facing Metro leaders should the appeal to the Supreme Court fail. How many at-large members The current council consists of five at-large seats representing the entire county and 35 district seats representing smaller sections of town. If the council is reduced to 20, city leaders will have to determine how many at-large seats should remain. Some council members want to keep five at-large seats, while others have mentioned three or two. There figures to be some members who push for eliminating the at-large roles altogether and forming a council with 20 district seats. Staffing and funding The most time-consuming part of a district council member's job is dealing with zoning applications and constituent services. If the council shrinks, meetings, texts and emails double. That could lead to needing more staff and paying the council members higher salaries. Increasing the pay creates the possibility of the council being effectively a full-time job, compared to the part-time job it is for most members now. How to draw the district lines Metro already goes through redistricting every decade, and typically the lines are drawn so that incumbent members don't have to run against each other in the next election. It will be impossible to maintain that approach with just 20 seats. It could lead to intriguing match-ups on the ballot in 2027. A guiding principle in drawing the lines will be maintaining the percentage of minority representatives on the council. Flashback: In 2023, the Planning Department released proposed maps for a 20-person counci l. The maps were moot because Metro won the initial court challenge and the law was struck down. Revisiting the old maps is a guide to what the new council districts could look like. All eyes on 2027 If the council is cut in half, as many anticipate, it will create a political battle royale for the city in 2027. In the last election two years ago, business groups faced off against progressive activist organizations in backing different candidates in Metro Council races. Overall, the progressive groups won that battle, flexing their grassroots organizing strength to overcome the fundraising advantage of the pro-business organizations. The result has been a council skeptical of increasing policing funding for initiatives like license plate readers, as well as increased scrutiny on economic development measures.
Axios
14 minutes ago
- Axios
Canada won't play Minnesota's wildfire smoke blame game
Minnesotans are inhaling another plume of smoke from Canada this week, and an attempt to blame Canada's handling of wildfires is being met with eye-rolls north of the border. Why it matters: Experts say smoky summers are likely the new normal in Minnesota and many parts of North America unaccustomed to dealing with the haze as climate change turns the continent's forests into tinderboxes. "We need to learn to live with fire and, unfortunately, learn to live with smoke," Ed Struzik, a Canadian environmental journalist and wildfire expert, told Axios. Driving the news: Earlier this month, Minnesota's Republican Congressional delegation demanded the Canadian government deploy new technology and share its plans for mitigating wildfires and smoke. "Canada must take stronger action to manage its forests," U.S. Rep. Pete Stauber wrote on X. The letter didn't go over well in Canada. Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew called the letter's congressional authors " ambulance chasers." The big picture: Even if Canada's national government were to devote more time and money to wildfire prevention and response — as some of the country's fire chiefs recently demanded after a record-setting 2023 fire season — Canadian experts say the measures would probably not stop smoke from billowing over the U.S. border. Many of the lawmakers' critiques would be equally valid in the U.S., which has deployed a number of the same responses and a comparable amount of resources toward wildfire prevention, Struzik said. Between the lines: Fire is a healthy part of many ecosystems' life cycles, and a century of extinguishing even the smallest blazes in both countries means there is plenty of fuel on the ground ready to ignite, University of British Columbia forest ecologist Lori Daniels told Axios. Thanks to climate change, these lands are also rapidly becoming hotter and drier. Reality check: The Minnesota GOP delegation's letter identified arson as a key cause, but Struzik noted lightning starts the vast majority of all Canadian wildfires. "There's nothing you can do about lightning," Struzik said, especially when it lights a remote area that burns out of control — and belches a lot of smoke. Yes, but: Canada has been slower than the U.S. to embrace prescribed burns — one of the most effective ways to protect against future wildfires, University of British Columbia assistant professor Mathieu Bourbonnais told Axios. These strategically set, carefully managed fires thin forests that are likely to burn. North America's Indigenous peoples used these burns for generations to maintain forest health. Canada does fewer burns because more land there is publicly owned, and it's trickier to set such fires on public land, said Bourbonnais. (He's now helping create a prescribed burn training program.)
