Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-248_4fc5.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

2 

BERGER v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE 
CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP 
SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

I 
The underlying dispute in this case concerns the consti-
tutionality  of  North  Carolina’s  voter-identification  law, 
Senate Bill 824 (S. B. 824), enacted in 2018.  The North Car-
olina  State  Conference  of  the  NAACP  (NAACP  respond-
ents) sued members of the North Carolina State Board of 
Elections (state respondents) and the Governor in Federal 
District  Court,  alleging  that  the  law  violated  the  Four-
teenth  and  Fifteenth  Amendments  and  §2  of  the  Voting
Rights Act by, among other things, discriminating against 
Black  and  Latino  voters.    The  state  attorney  general  ap-
peared as counsel to represent the Governor and state re-
spondents.  See  N. C.  Gen.  Stat.  Ann.  §114–2  (2021)
(providing that the attorney general has a “duty” “to appear
for the State” in any matter “in which the State may be a 
party  or  interested”  and  to  “represent  all  State  depart-
ments,  agencies,  institutions,  commissions,  bureaus  or 
other organized activities of the State”).  NAACP respond-
ents also filed a parallel challenge to S. B. 824 in state court.
See Holmes v. Moore, No. 18–CV–15292 (Super. Ct. Wake 
Cty., N. C.).

Shortly after the federal suit was filed, Philip E. Berger, 
the president pro tempore of the North Carolina Senate, and 
Timothy K. Moore, the speaker of the North Carolina House
of Representatives (petitioners here), filed a motion to in-
tervene “on behalf of the General Assembly.”  App. 55.  They
sought to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil 
Procedure 24(a)(2), claiming a “significantly protectable in-
terest  in  the  validity  of  S.B.  824.”    App.  61.  Petitioners 
cited, among other things, a state statute conferring upon
them standing to intervene on behalf of the General Assem-
bly  in  cases  challenging  state  law.  Id.,  at  61–62  (citing 
N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §1–72.2).  In the alternative, petition-
ers  sought  permissive  intervention  under  Federal  Rule  of
Civil Procedure 24(b).

The District Court denied the motion without prejudice,