NYT:

A majority of the Supreme Court appeared sympathetic on Wednesday to arguments by an Illinois congressman that political candidates should be able to challenge their states’ election laws.

During the approximately two-hour argument, the justices grappled with what political candidates, particularly those with nearly guaranteed success in an election, must show in order to bring a legal challenge to election rules.

The argument centered on a threshold question: What is the legal standard candidates must meet to prove they have been harmed by a rule?

If the court were to endorse an expansive definition for who can bring such challenges, it could clear the way for a flood of litigation against all sorts of state election rules, particularly from Republicans who have argued that the rules in some states favor Democrats….

Many of the conservative justices signaled support for arguments by Paul D. Clement, who represented Mr. Bost.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. appeared receptive to the idea that candidates, regardless of their chances of victory in an election, should be able to bring lawsuits. If not, the chief justice said, it could be “a potential disaster” if courts felt required to weigh whether a candidate might win or lose.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh echoed this concern, cautioning that federal courts not be reliant on a rule requiring “prognostication” on an election outcome.

But several justices also wrestled with the implications of carving out a new rule specific to Mr. Bost’s case, a worry that Justice Amy Coney Barrett described as fashioning “bespoke rules” for different types of litigants….