Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-248_4fc5.pdf
Page Number: 32.0

10 

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

divining the true position of the [State] on issues like the 
meaning of state law, or even for purposes of doctrines like 
judicial  estoppel.”  Kaul,  942  F. 3d,  at  801–802;  see  New 
Jersey v. New York, 345 U. S. 369, 373 (1953) (per curiam)
(declining  to  be  drawn  into  “intramural  dispute”  within  a
State).

It is difficult to overstate the burden the Court’s holding 
will foist on district courts.  Each intervenor will be entitled 
to file its own brief concerning every motion and will be en-
titled to its own discovery.  Even when state agents’ posi-
tions align, this multitude of parties will clog federal courts
and  delay  the  administration  of  justice.3  When  state 
agents’ positions diverge, courts will also be put in the un-
enviable position of determining “which of [a State’s] repre-
sentatives . . . better represents it.”  999 F. 3d, at 934.  Out 
of respect for federalism, if nothing else, we should not in-
terpret state law to hijack federal courts’ ability to manage 
litigation involving States.  See Virginia Office for Protec-
tion  and  Advocacy  v.  Stewart,  563  U. S.  247,  272  (2011) 
(ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting) (noting the “indignity” suffered 
by a State when “a federal judge . . . decide[s] an internal
state dispute”). 

III 
Aided by its new presumption of inadequacy, the Court 
concludes that state respondents inadequately represented 
petitioners’  stated  interests.    The  Court  states  that  in  so 
holding, it “[c]ast[s] aspersions on no one.”  Ante, at 16.  In 
the  Court’s  view,  however,  petitioners  (unlike  state  re-
spondents and their counsel, the attorney general) “are not 
—————— 

3 This case is the perfect example.  The District Court scheduled trial 
for January 2021, but postponed it to January 2022 pending resolution 
of  petitioners’  appeal  of  their  second  motion  for  intervention.  See  999 
F. 3d, at 923.  After certiorari was granted, the District Court stayed trial 
pending this Court’s disposition of the case.  Now that the District Court 
will be obligated to allow petitioners to intervene, trial inevitably will be
delayed much further.