Historic Supreme Court Argument Set

[INSIDE JW]

SUPREME COURT SETS ARGUMENT ON ILLINOIS’ POST–ELECTION BALLOT
COUNTING

[[link removed]]

Our fight for the rule of law in elections is moving forward at the
U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court just scheduled oral argument
[[link removed]]
for October 8, 2025, in our lawsuit 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 ballot counting
for 14 days beyond the date established by federal law.

On July 22, we announced that we filed our opening brief
[[link removed]]
to
the Supreme Court in this case (_Rep. Michael J. Bost, Laura
Pollastrini, and Susan Sweeney v. The Illinois State Board of
Elections and Bernadette Matthew_
[[link removed]
[[link removed]
_(No.
1:22-cv-02754, 23-2644, 24-568)).

In June, the Supreme Court agreed to hear
[[link removed]]

[[link removed]
appeal of the decision
[[link removed]]
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
[[link removed]]
on May 25, 2022.

Our Supreme Court brief
[[link removed]]
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.”

This is a historic election law challenge. Too many courts have denied
candidates their right to challenge unlawful election rules such as
the outrageous act of counting ballots that arrive AFTER Election Day.
American citizens concerned about election integrity will tune in
closely to Judicial Watch’s Supreme Court arguments on October 8.

As you know, we are a national leader in voting integrity and voting
rights. As part of its work, Judicial Watch assembled a team of highly
experienced voting rights attorneys who stopped discriminatory
elections in Hawaii, and cleaned up voter rolls across the country,
among other achievements
[[link removed]].

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.

Paul Clement, who has argued more than 100 cases before the Supreme
Court, is representing Congressman Bost and the electors with us
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.

T. Russell Nobile, a Judicial Watch senior attorney, is part of our
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.

Eric Lee is an attorney at Judicial Watch, where he focuses on
enforcing federal and state laws that promote transparency and
integrity in the electoral process. Eric graduated with his B.A. from
St. Mary’s College of Maryland and received his J.D. from the
University of Maryland School of Law. He is licensed to practice in
California, Maryland, the District of Columbia, and in federal courts
in Illinois and Colorado.

We recently filed a brief
[[link removed]]
to
the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the Libertarian Party of
Mississippi, opposing the State of Mississippi’s attempt to overturn
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision, which
struck down a law allowing ballots received after Election Day to be
counted.

Federal courts for Oregon
[[link removed]],
California and Illinois
[[link removed]]
have
ruled that our lawsuits may proceed against those states to force them
to clean their voter rolls.

We announced
[[link removed]]
in May that our work led to the removal of more than five million
ineligible names from voter rolls nationwide.



JUDICIAL WATCH URGES SUPREME COURT TO PRESERVE RESPECT FOR ELECTION
DAY

The Supreme Court is now considering whether to take up a challenge to
Judicial Watch’s historic victory essentially outlawing the counting
of ballots received after Election Day in several states. On behalf of
the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, we filed a brief
[[link removed]]
with the U.S. Supreme Court opposing the State of Mississippi’s
attempt to overturn
[[link removed]]
the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision striking down a
law allowing the counting of ballots received after Election Day
(_Michael Watson, Mississippi Secretary of State v. Republican
National Committee, et al.,_
[[link removed].
24-1260)).

The October 25, 2024, Fifth Circuit appellate opinion
[[link removed]]
found:

> Congress statutorily designated a singular “day for the
> election” of members of Congress and the appointment of
> presidential electors. Text, precedent, and historical practice
> confirm this “day for the election” is the day by which ballots
> must be both cast by voters and received by state officials. Because
> Mississippi’s statute allows ballot receipt up to five days after
> the federal election day, it is preempted by federal law. We reverse
> the district court’s contrary judgment and remand for further
> proceedings.

Our brief
[[link removed]]
argues that the Supreme Court should refuse to review the Fifth
Circuit ruling:

> [T]he Court of Appeals correctly applied existing Court precedent to
> find that the Receipt Deadline is inconsistent and conflicts with
> the Election Day statutes, and is preempted by them. Petitioner [MS
> secretary of state] has not demonstrated any reason why the
> Court’s intervention is needed now. Modification of the Election
> Day receipt deadline allows states to “engage in gamesmanship,
> experiment with deadlines, and renew the very ills Congress sought
> to eliminate: fraud, uncertainty, and delay.”

We initially filed the civil rights lawsuit
[[link removed]]
in
February 2024 on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi,
challenging the same Mississippi election law permitting absentee
ballots to be received as long as five business days after Election
Day. The suit was consolidated with one filed by the Republican
National Committee, the Mississippi Republican Party, and other
complainants.

In March 2025, the Fifth Circuit declined to rehear
[[link removed]]
its previous
ruling, in which it agreed with Judicial Watch that it was unlawful
for Mississippi to count ballots that arrived after Election Day. The
full Circuit declined to hear the case by a vote of 5 to 10.

Our brief recounts:

> In reversing the district court on the merits, the [Fifth Circuit]
> panel faithfully followed this Court’s precedent ... [T]his Court
> found that the Election Day statutes preempted a Louisiana law that
> allowed congressional candidates to be elected in October…. In
> interpreting the meaning of “day of the election” within the
> Election Day statutes, this Court found that “[w]hen the federal
> statutes speak of ‘the election’ of a Senator or Representative,
> they plainly refer to the combined actions of voters and officials
> meant to make a final selection of an officeholder.” …
> Accordingly, the “day of the election” “may not be consummated
> prior to federal election day.”

On July 22, we filed our opening brief
[[link removed]]
to
the Supreme Court 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_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:22-cv-02754, 23-2644, 24-568)). Initially filed in May 2022,
this was the first challenge
[[link removed]]
seeking to require all ballots be received by Election Day.

In March 2025, we filed a federal lawsuit
[[link removed]]
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_
[[link removed]]
(No. 3:25-cv-00598)).

Counting ballots received after Election Day is a flagrant violation
of federal law and encourages fraud and voter distrust. Let us hope
that the Supreme Court will decline to hear Mississippi’s senseless
attempt to overturn a historic decision that sensibly concluded that
counting ballots received after Election Day is unlawful.

DOZENS OF PRISONERS RELEASED FROM GITMO REENGAGING IN TERRORIST
ACTIVITIES

Once a terrorist, always a terrorist? It seems that way, and yet
leftists in our government keep releasing terrorists who go right back
to terrorism, our _Corruption Chronicles_ blog reports
[[link removed]

> Over a decade after the U.S. government offered a $5 million reward
>
[[link removed]]
> for information on the whereabouts of an Al Qaeda operative it
> released from the military prison at Guantanamo Bay (“Gitmo”) an
> intelligence report reveals that, like him, dozens of detainees
> freed from the compound have rejoined terrorist missions. They are
> part of the hundreds of Gitmo terrorists discharged over the years
> under a controversial program that started with President George W.
> Bush and continued full throttle under the Obama administration.
> Numerous military and intelligence reports have for years documented
> that many of the captives return to terrorism after leaving the top
> security prison at the Naval station in southeast Cuba.

> As far back as 2010 Obama’s National Intelligence Director
> disclosed
>
[[link removed]]

>
[[link removed]
> one in four men incarcerated at Gitmo resume terrorist activities
> against the United States after being released even as the former
> president worked to fulfill his promise of returning America to the
> “moral high ground” by closing the detention facility. At the
> time 150 former Gitmo prisoners were confirmed or suspected of
> “reengaging in terrorist or insurgent activities after
> transfer,” the then Director of National Intelligence (DNI) told
> Congress. At least 83 “remain at large” and if additional
> detainees are released, some will “reengage in terrorist or
> insurgent activities,” the 2010 DNI assessment stated. Years
> earlier the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had
> acknowledged a sharp rise in the number of Gitmo detainees who
> rejoin terrorist missions after leaving U.S. custody. Using data
> such as fingerprints, pictures, and other reports the defense
> agency, which gathers foreign military intelligence, determined that
> the number of Middle Eastern terrorists who returned to “the
> fight” after discharge from Gitmo nearly doubled in a short time.

> All these years later, as some Democrats and their leftist allies
> insist on closing the prison, the recidivism issue persists. The
> facility still houses the world’s most dangerous Islamic
> terrorists, including 9/11 masterminds Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM),
> Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al
> Hawsawi as well as USS Cole bomber Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. But many
> dangerous, once classified “forever” prisoners, have been let go
> and present a grave national security threat. The Al Qaeda
> operative, Ibrahim al-Rubaysh, that the government offered a
> multi-million-dollar reward for after the Gitmo release is a senior
> Sharia official and advisor
>
[[link removed]]
of the
> terrorist organization, according to the State Department. Other
> examples of recidivism among freed Gitmo jihadists include dozens
> who have rejoined Al Qaeda in Yemen, the country where the 2009
> Christmas Day airline bomber proudly trained, and several
> high-ranking Al Qaeda militants in Yemen involved in a sophisticated
> scheme to send bombs on a U.S.-bound cargo plane. A Gitmo alum named
> Mullah Abdul Rauf, who once led a Taliban unit, established the
> first Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) base in Afghanistan.
> Another, Sabir Mahfouz Lahmar, was arrested in France as part of a
> terrorist cell that operated an ISIS recruiting network.

> The latest report
>
[[link removed]]

>
[[link removed]
> by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)
> reveals that of 739 prisoners released from Gitmo, 137 are
> “confirmed of reengaging” in terrorist activities and 97 are
> suspected of doing so, which means they likely are. “Based on
> trends identified during the past 20 years, we assess that some
> detainees currently at GTMO will seek to reengage in terrorist or
> insurgent activities after they are transferred,” the recently
> declassified ODNI document states. “Transfers to countries with
> ongoing conflicts and internal instability as well as recruitment by
> terrorist or insurgent organizations could pose an increased risk of
> reengagement.” The ODNI further reveals that former Gitmo
> detainees routinely communicate with each other, families of former
> detainees and members of terrorist organizations. Intelligence
> officials have determined that planning terrorist operations is
> among the reasons for the communication.

> The Biden administration released the latest batch of terrorists
> from Gitmo, 11 Yemenis
>
[[link removed]]

>
[[link removed]
> to Oman in early January. There are currently 15 of the world’s
> most dangerous jihadists at the military prison that once
> incarcerated 779. For years Judicial Watch has traveled to Gitmo to
> observe and report on the military tribunal trials of 9/11
> terrorists and others, including USS Cole bomber al-Nashiri.
> Judicial Watch also covers all the hearings held by the
> Obama-created parole panel known as the Periodic Review Board via
> satellite video feed at the Pentagon.

Until next week,



[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


[advertisement]
[[link removed]]


[32x32x1]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x2]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

202.646.5172



© 2017 - 2025, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]