Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-601_bq7c.pdf
Page Number: 15

Cite as:  595 U. S. ____ (2022) 

11 

Opinion of the Court 

filed within a week after the Sixth Circuit issued its deci-
sion and within the 14-day time limit for petitioning for re-
hearing en banc.  Although the litigation by that time had 
proceeded for years, that factor is not dispositive.  The at-
torney general’s need to seek intervention did not arise un-
til  the  secretary  ceased  defending  the  state  law,  and  the 
timeliness  of  his  motion  should  be  assessed  in  relation  to 
that point in time. 
  Respondents argue that the attorney general should have 
realized  as  soon  as  Governor  Beshear  took  office  that  his 
secretary  for  Health  and  Family  Services  might  abandon 
the  defense  of  HB  454.    Respondents  state  that  Governor 
Beshear ran “on a pro-choice platform and . . . had repeat-
edly  withdrawn  from  the  defense  of  abortion  restrictions 
when serving as Attorney General.”  Brief for Respondents 
28.  But the new secretary whom he appointed after taking 
office as Governor had continued to defend the law on ap-
peal, and respondents do not explain why the attorney gen-
eral  should  have  known  that  the  secretary  would  change 
course after the panel’s decision was handed down. 
  In arguing to the contrary, respondents point to our deci-
sion in NAACP v. New York, 413 U. S. 345, but they mis-
read that decision.  In that case, several parties unsuccess-
fully sought to intervene in a Voting Rights Act case after 
the United States, which had brought the action, consented 
to the entry of judgment in favor of the defendant.  The Dis-
trict  Court  found  that  this  request  was  untimely,  and  we 
affirmed, noting that the United States’ answer to the com-
plaint,  which  had  been  filed  almost  a  month  earlier,  had 
revealed  that  the  Government  “was  without  information 
with  which  it  could oppose the motion  for summary  judg-
ment.”    Id.,  at  367.    That  response,  we  concluded,  should 
have  alerted  the  would-be  intervenors  about  the  United 
States’  likely  course  of  action.    Ibid.    We  also  observed, 
among other things, that intervention had “the potential for 
seriously  disrupting”  the  approaching  elections.    Id.,  at