Supreme Court agrees to hear absentee ballot appeal from Illinois congressman
The Supreme Court said Monday that it will hear an appeal from Illinois Rep. Mike Bost who wants to challenge the state's decision to count absentee ballots after Election Day.
At issue is a lower court ruling that found the Republican and two presidential elector nominees did not have standing to sue. The Supreme Court will likely hear arguments in the case in the fall.
Bost sued in 2022, claiming that an Illinois law allowing mail-in ballots to arrive up to two weeks after Election Day ran afoul federal law that sets a uniform day for federal elections. As in other states, the mail-in ballots at issue must be postmarked on or before the election.
President Donald Trump has attacked the practice with an executive order that pressures states to abandon their post-election deadlines for mail-in ballots to arrive at election offices. His directives are subject to litigation as well.
Roughly 20 other states and jurisdictions count ballots that arrive after Election Day.
Republicans are pursuing litigation in multiple courts attempting to roll back the expansion of mail-in voting. A federal appeals court in Louisiana last year ruled that Mississippi was violating federal law by counting mail ballots that arrive after Election Day, but stopped short of blocking the policy before the November election.
Lower courts never considered Bost's underlying claim. A federal district court ruled that Bost and the other plaintiffs were not injured by the state ballot law and so they did not have standing to sue. A divided 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision and Bost appealed the technical question of standing to the high court.
Bost, first elected in 2014, tried to argue that his campaign was required to pay for an additional two weeks of staff to monitor ballot counting. But the 7th Circuit noted that Bost won reelection in his Southern Illinois district by a healthy margin and that he chose to spend resources to avoid a hypothetical future harm.
'Plaintiffs cannot manufacture standing by choosing to spend money to mitigate such conjectural risks,' the court wrote.
The three-judge panel included one judge nominated by Trump and another named by President Joe Biden.
US Circuit Judge Michael Scudder, who was also nominated by Trump, dissented.
'As a sitting member of Congress in the midst of an ongoing reelection campaign, he is nothing close to a 'mere bystander' to the upcoming election or the allegation at the heart of this lawsuit,' Scudder wrote.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans and Economists at Odds Over Whether Megabill Will Spur Growth Boom
WASHINGTON—Republicans see a golden age of prosperity ahead, driven by the tax-and-spending megabill they are trying to push through Congress by July 4. Nonpartisan experts project far more modest effects, forecasting a slight near-term economic expansion and larger federal budget deficits. The growth debate is at the core of this summer's fiscal fight. Republicans are trying to focus public attention on growth—from tax cuts, deregulation and fossil-fuel production—and play down the Congressional Budget Office estimate that the bill would increase budget deficits by $2.4 trillion through 2034. The White House highlights growth to bolster congressional support, countering claims from Elon Musk and others that the package irresponsibly darkens America's fiscal picture. 'Sextortion' Scams Involving Apple Messages Ended in Tragedy for These Boys The U.S. Economy Is Headed Toward an Uncomfortable Summer I Got Burned by the 401(k) 'Hierarchy Trap' Test Yourself Against These Teen Personal-Finance Whizzes, Round 2 Republicans and outside economists agree on the basic direction: tax cuts increase consumer spending and business investment, accelerating short-term growth. But they differ vastly on how large and meaningful that jump would be. The bill, according to public- and private-sector economists, would fall far short of Republicans' hoped-for boom. 'We would expect some dynamic revenue, some revenue feedback in that larger economy,' said Garrett Watson, director of policy analysis at the Tax Foundation, which favors lower tax rates and a simpler system. 'But it wouldn't come close to paying for itself.' President Trump said in a social-media post last month that the U.S. annual growth rate would triple or even quintuple the 1.8% in CBO's January forecast, which doesn't incorporate the effects of any GOP policies. Since 2005, real U.S. gross domestic product growth hit or exceeded 3% twice: in 2018 after the 2017 tax cuts, and in 2021 during the recovery from the pandemic. House Republicans assume a 2.6% growth rate, yielding enough revenue to cover the megabill's deficits. 'The economy is going to explode in capital formation. Jobs will increase. Wages will increase,' Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R., Idaho) said after meeting with Trump last week. 'We're going to see the kind of growth and strength that this country wants.' Broadly, economists across the political spectrum discount elected officials' predictions. Tax Foundation: The conservative-leaning group estimates that the bill would boost long-term GDP by 0.8%, generating enough revenue to cover about one-third of its costs. That is compared with doing nothing and letting tax cuts expire Dec. 31. The gain is like adding an average of 0.1 percentage point to the annual growth rate; reaching 3% would require much larger changes, Watson said. Penn Wharton: Its budget model projects a 0.4% increase in GDP over the first decade. That is equivalent to raising the annual growth rate to 1.85% from 1.8%. 'Basically, I would call this flat,' said Kent Smetters, who runs the Penn model. 'We all know this is all going to get swamped by all the randomness.' Joint Committee on Taxation: The nonpartisan congressional scorekeeper projected that the bill's tax components would produce short-run growth through increased labor supply and capital stock. That would be counteracted by rising budget deficits, with a net effect of taking 1.83% annual growth to 1.86%. JCT estimates that the bill's tax provisions would cover less than 3% of their costs with revenue from economic growth. Yale Budget Lab: The think tank says the bill would bump the growth rate roughly to 2% from 1.8% through 2027, before the drag of federal debt weakens and reverses that effect. Those all contrast with the view of the White House's Council of Economic Advisers, which has a far rosier scenario. It projects a 4.2% to 5.2% increase in short-term GDP and a long-term gain of 2.9% to 3.5%. That gain would be three to four times the Tax Foundation estimate, which itself is larger than Penn Wharton, Yale or JCT. Economists caution that tax policy can't move the needle much in the U.S. economy, particularly given higher costs and uncertainty caused by tariffs. Still, putting money in taxpayers' pockets could increase demand for goods and services. Lower business taxes—especially faster write-offs for equipment and factories—encourage investment and have the biggest bang for the buck. Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Stephen Miran said growth after 2017 demonstrates that the Republican formula can work. The economy and incomes grew solidly in 2018 and 2019 before the Covid-19 pandemic scrambled everything. 'When Americans elected President Trump, they did so knowing that he was a pro-growth president,' Miran said. 'The bill is going to create a vibrant, dynamic economy.' Miran added that federal taxes as a share of GDP was barely unchanged from fiscal 2017 to fiscal 2024. According to CBO, revenue was 17.3% of GDP in 2017 and 17.1% in 2024. 'There was no long-term hole in revenues,' Miran said. But before the tax cuts passed, CBO forecast revenue increasing to 18.3% in 2024, and the law changed that trajectory. One of the most thorough academic studies found that the 2017 law increased domestic business investment but didn't come close to paying for itself. The Tax Foundation's Watson said policymakers should expect a more muted response from extending the 2017 tax cuts than from creating them. The bill includes new and revived business incentives but schedules them to expire. 'It's pro-growth,' Watson said. 'The more you add in some of these gimmicks and temporary changes, the more watered-down it gets.' Senators including James Lankford (R., Okla.) and Steve Daines (R., Mont.) are seeking changes to encourage growth. They are particularly focused on making permanent some business-tax provisions such as immediate deductions for equipment purchases. 'If you have an expiration, you just don't get predictability,' Lankford said. Capital-investment incentives would be muted because tariff uncertainty complicates business planning, said Seth Carpenter, global chief economist at Morgan Stanley, which estimates that the bill would boost growth in 2026 before turning neutral and then negative. Some projects might make sense with high tariffs but not lower ones. Even with the bill's new deduction for factory expenses, without tariff certainty, Carpenter said, 'I don't think you're going to be in any sort of hurry to start breaking ground.' Kimberly Clausing, a former Biden administration economist now at the University of California, Los Angeles, said she worries about the drag from budget deficits. 'If they failed,' she said, 'I actually think that would be the best possible macroeconomic outcome.' Write to Richard Rubin at How Hydrogen, the Fuel of the Future, Got Bogged Down in the Bayou Chinese-Owned Company Halts Work on Factory to Make Batteries in U.S. It's the Republicans, Not Musk, Who Are Serious About Cutting Spending Trump's New Steel Tariffs Look Vulnerable to a Courtroom Challenge Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lt. Gov. Delgado pitches fundamental change as he challenges his boss for governor
Jun. 7—SCHENECTADY — Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado is pitching himself as a transformative leader who will make fundamental changes to how New York operates and will prioritize issues, blaming "current leaders" — his boss Gov. Kathleen C. Hochul — for failing to effectively respond to the core issues of our time. On Saturday, in a humid half-court YMCA gymnasium to a crowd of about 150 people in his hometown, Delgado spoke of family, of loyalty, of his commitment to representing the people of New York above all, and batted away criticism that he's proven a disloyal No. 2 to Hochul. "Some folks will talk about this idea of loyalty, since I announced my run for governor, loyalty," he said. "But I have to ask, loyal to who? Loyal to what?" "Loyalty to a broken system is why we're in this mess to begin with," he continued. "Don't talk to me about loyalty unless it's loyalty to the people." Delgado didn't name Hochul outright in his speech, but derided many of the policies the Hochul administration has overseen as fundamentally out of touch with good governance. "All New Yorkers, every single New Yorker, deserves better leadership," he said. He criticized programs that funnel public, taxpayer money into private enterprises, both to achieve economic growth and to deliver public benefits like healthcare and public housing. He questioned the financial viability of such programs, which he said have not done much to improve quality of life or boost economic performance. He said New York is the nation's third-largest economy, and would be eighth in the world if identified as its own nation — and with a $254 billion public state budget for the coming year. "Where is the money going?" he asked his supporters on Saturday. Delgado laid out a number of broad policy proposals — just a first look, he said. He called for efforts to address poverty, taking back public housing programs and increasing the income cap to qualify for New York's "Essential Plan" publicly-subsidized health insurance plan. He called for universal pre-school across the state and an increase in the statewide minimum wage "for everyone." He said the state should stand up it's own rental assistance programs, and make efforts to reach the estimated seven out of 10 eligible people who don't take advantage of that and other public benefit programs. He also called for universal childcare beyond universal pre-school as well, and said the state should establish a taxpayer-funded account to pay extra money to childcare workers as well. But when asked if he supported the extra spending that would come with those programs, Delgado said he wasn't backing the bills that currently exist in the state legislature that would enact many of these programs. "What I'm laying out is a vision," he said to gathered reporters after the campaign event. "Then you work with the legislative body to effectuate the vision and figure out what the best way forward is to get there. Delgado's message is one of change, of a departure from the way Hochul and recent governors before her have done things — and he said he has not been a significant part of that governance despite being the No. 2 most senior elected official in the state since 2022, when Hochul appointed him to replace then-Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin. "I've tried very hard to communicate all these things within the administration, I've tried to push to make sure that we take bolder steps," he said. "Now listen, to do that you have to be part of the decision-making process, right. To do that, you have to be included." He said he was not included in that process, despite promises from Hochul before he was appointed that she would take a different approach to governing and would include the lieutenant in more decisions. That's not historically how the job works — for years, the lieutenant governor position has been varying degrees of thankless and responsibility-free. The lieutenant is no longer even regularly handed control of state government when the governor leaves the state, thanks to modern communications technology and the governor's private planes and helicopters. Delgado broke with Hochul nearly a year ago — first by calling for President Joseph R. Biden to step aside from his reelection campaign after his poor debate performance in June of 2024, then on further and further issues. After telling reporters in a rare Capitol news conference that he was working toward a better relationship with the governor, Delgado announced he would step aside and not run for reelection with Hochul. She responded by stripping him of everything but the most basic essentials for his office — taking back his downstate and Capitol second floor office space, a significant amount of his staff, digital devices, executive email and vehicles. Delgado has been left with a skeleton crew for official staff and a rarely-used office off of the state Senate chambers mostly used for ceremonial purposes in typical times. She also took all the duties and initiatives she's assigned to him and his team — a program to boost civic engagement and any assignments to represent the Governor's office at events across the state. All that remains is his constitutional duty to preside over the Senate — another rarely used ceremonial role almost always delegated to the Senate Majority Leader by assigning them as President Pro Tempore. Delgado hasn't done that since the first day of session in January. Delgado has maintained for months, since he started to break with the governor, that his real job is to "get out there and connect with people," a phrase he's repeated often including on Saturday. He, in his capacity as Lieutenant, has held quasi-campaign rallies across the state framed as town hall events, meeting with those in the community who care to show up. Many of those events were filmed and cut together for his campaign announcement video. "As lieutenant governor, I can't control when somebody decides to take a look at my staff, I can't control someone taking my phone, I can't control that," he said. "What I can control is my connection to New Yorkers, and I'm going to continue to lean in on my connection to New Yorkers. New Yorkers, who, by the way, who independently elected me to serve in this capacity." Delgado went on to say that he didn't see that same approach from Hochul — and that's what made him decide to run against her. "I wasn't seeing the plan, on top of that you don't have visibility to where we're going, you don't know exactly what the plan is, what the vision is, this feels more reactive, that's the piece I want to make sure that I change," he said. Delgado's path to victory is far from simple — Hochul has the incumbency advantage, years of fundraising, the support of the state Democratic party and polls better than Delgado in statewide rankings. Shortly after Delgado dropped his announcement video on June 2, a coordinated effort by the state party to shore up local Democratic support resulted with over 40 out of 64 local county Democratic chairs endorsing Hochul. On Friday, three leading Schenectady County Democrats announced they're backing Hochul. Hochul's campaign declined to comment on the lieutenant governor's criticism, or his candidacy in general, but pointed to a handful of news reports detailing those county and local endorsements of her, plus a New York Post article from Saturday with the headline "'No Show' Delgado: NY's lieutenant governor does little to earn $220k paycheck, records show." But Delgado isn't without his support — a handful of Democratic chairs, including from Greene and Otsego counties were at his event on Saturday. They appeared in their personal capacities — many county committees don't endorse before a primary, and others haven't had meetings to decide if they want to endorse, and who to endorse, yet. Greene County Chair Lori Torgerson said her county committee hasn't met yet, but said that for her personally, Delgado represents a good leader with a clear vision. "Antonio has integrity, everything he said today I believe he delivers on, and in my experience he has never been a leader who says one thing and does another," she said. Otsego County chair Caitlin Ogden said her committee generally doesn't endorse a candidate if there's a primary, but said that since Delgado's time in Congress he's demonstrated an ability to flip Republican and Trump-loyal voters and could be the best pick to stop the shift to the right the electorate has demonstrated in recent elections "I feel that he's the one whose got a proven track record doing that, and he has a really good shot," she said.
Newsweek
10 minutes ago
- Newsweek
LA Protests: Trump's National Guard Move Sparks Legal Concerns
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. President Donald Trump's announcement of the deployment of the National Guard in California to quell protests against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions has raised legal concerns. Why It Matters Federal immigration enforcement operations sparked protests across California for a second day in a row on Saturday. ICE carried out raids in Paramount, Los Angeles County, following similar actions at several locations throughout other parts of city on Friday. Governor Gavin Newsom criticized the move, saying that local law enforcement was already mobilized and the presence of the National Guard was "purposefully inflammatory," would "escalate tensions" and "erode public trust." What To Know On Saturday, the White House ordered the deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles under a provision called Title 10 to "temporarily protect ICE and other United States government personnel who are performing federal functions." The National Guard is a state-based military force that serves as both a state and federal reserve branch of the U.S. Army and Air Force. It typically operates under state command and is funded by the state. However, in some cases, troops may be assigned to federal missions while still under state control, with funding provided by the central government. The law referenced in Trump's proclamation allows National Guard troops to be placed under federal command, and permits this under three conditions: if the U.S. is invaded or faces the threat of invasion; if there is a rebellion or imminent rebellion against federal authority; or if the president is unable to enforce federal laws using regular forces. A protester stands on a burned car holding a Mexican flag at Atlantic Avenue on June 7, 2025, in Paramount, Los Angeles County, California. A protester stands on a burned car holding a Mexican flag at Atlantic Avenue on June 7, 2025, in Paramount, Los Angeles County, California. Apu Gomes/GETTY The memorandum from the White House reads: "To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States." However, the law also stipulates that such orders should be "be issued through the governors of the states." It is not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. Newsweek contacted the White House for clarification via email outside of regular working hours. "President Trump's deployment of federalized National Guard troops in response to protests is unnecessary, inflammatory, and an abuse of power," said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project. The Trump administration has not invoked the Insurrection Act, according to anonymous U.S. officials who spoke to Reuters this weekend. The act of 1807 serves as the primary legal authority allowing a president to deploy the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or civil unrest. A memo issued by the White House on the matter specifies that the National Guard has been deployed to "temporarily protect ICE and other United States government personnel who are performing federal functions, including the enforcement of federal law, and to protect federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations." This means that National Guard troops will not be permitted to aid local law enforcement—they will be used to protect and provide logistic support to federal ICE agents. "There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves," Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, wrote in a blog post. "There is the obvious concern that, even as they are doing nothing more than 'protecting' ICE officers discharging federal functions, these federalized troops will end up using force—in response to real or imagined violence or threats of violence against those officers. In other words, there's the very real possibility that having federal troops on the ground will only raise the risk of escalating violence—not decrease it." What People Are Saying A White House memo reads: "Numerous incidents of violence and disorder have recently occurred and threaten to continue in response to the enforcement of federal law by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other United States government personnel who are performing federal functions and supporting the faithful execution of federal immigration laws. In addition, violent protests threaten the security of and significant damage to federal immigration detention facilities and other federal property." Border czar Tom Homan on Fox News: "We're already mobilizing. We're gonna bring the National Guard in tonight and we're gonna continue doing our job. This is about enforcing the law." He continued: "American people, this is about enforcing the law, and again, we're not going to apologize for doing it." California Governor Gavin Newsom on X, formerly Twitter, following the National Guard announcement: "The federal government is moving to take over the California National Guard and deploy 2,000 soldiers. That move is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions. L.A. authorities are able to access law enforcement assistance at a moment's notice. We are in close coordination with the city and county, and there is currently no unmet need." Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project: "By taking this action, the Trump administration is putting Angelenos in danger, creating legal and ethical jeopardy for troops, and recklessly undermining our foundational democratic principle that the military should not police civilians." Newsom's office also told Newsweek on Friday: "Continued chaotic federal sweeps, across California, to meet an arbitrary arrest quota are as reckless as they are cruel. Donald Trump's chaos is eroding trust, tearing families apart, and undermining the workers and industries that power America's economy." Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, told the Los Angeles Times: "It is using the military domestically to stop dissent. It certainly sends a message as to how this administration is going to respond to protests. It is very frightening to see this done." What Happens Next After Trump announced he was deploying National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton, south of Los Angeles, were on "high alert" and could also be mobilized "if violence continues."
