Dear Friend,
 
The Supreme Court has answered a question that affects every American: 
Who gets a day in court when the government causes harm?
 
In a divided decision in Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, the Court ruled that political candidates may challenge election-related rules, including those that force them to spend additional time and money protecting their interests. But when it came to ordinary Americans facing the same kinds of government-imposed burdens, the Court stopped short.
 
This case wasn’t really about ballots or campaigns. It was about standing—the legal doctrine courts use to decide who is allowed to sue when the government oversteps its bounds.

Increasingly, standing has become a gatekeeper—not to ensure real cases are heard, but to ensure they are never heard at all.
 
We’ve seen this pattern before:

• when citizens challenge government-pressured censorship,
• when whistleblowers expose retaliation,
• when people try to hold powerful officials accountable for clear constitutional violations.

Again and again, courts have dismissed these cases—not because the harm wasn’t real, but because the people harmed were told they didn’t have “standing.” As we warned the Supreme Court in this case, a Constitution that cannot be enforced in court is little more than a suggestion. 

You can read our full press release on the ruling here.

The fight for freedom doesn’t end at the courthouse steps—but too often today, that’s exactly where it’s being stopped.

Thank you for standing with The Rutherford Institute as we work to keep the doors to justice open. Together, we WILL make America free again.
 
For freedom,
 
John W. Whitehead
Constitutional Attorney
President, The Rutherford Institute
 

Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections

• Supreme Court Opinion
• Amicus Brief 

To donate via PayPal, please click below: