Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-601_bq7c.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

him as attorney general.  On January 20, Governor Beshear 
appointed a new secretary for Health and Family Services, 
and the new secretary, represented by lawyers from the at-
torney  general’s  office,  continued  the  defense  of  the  chal-
lenged law.  On January 28, one day before the appeal was 
argued, Attorney General Cameron also entered an appear-
ance as counsel for the secretary.  Id., at 82–83. 
  On June 2, 2020, a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit af-
firmed the District Court’s judgment.  EMW Women’s Sur-
gical Center, P.S.C. v. Friedlander, 960 F. 3d 785, 790–812.  
In  dissent,  Judge  Bush  argued  that  the  plaintiffs  lacked 
third-party standing and criticized the majority for refusing 
to wait for our decision on that issue in June Medical Ser-
vices L. L. C. v. Russo, 591 U. S. ___ (2020).  Within a week 
after the panel’s decision, the secretary informed the attor-
ney general’s office that he would not file a petition for re-
hearing en banc or a petition for a writ of certiorari, App. 
153, 161, but the secretary agreed not to oppose the attor-
ney general if he moved to intervene for the purpose of seek-
ing  further  review.    Id.,  at  153–154.    Two  days  later,  the 
attorney general moved to withdraw as counsel for the sec-
retary and to intervene as a party on behalf of the Common-
wealth.  Id., at 152.  The secretary did not oppose that mo-
tion, but respondents did.  Id., at 170–172.  Five days later, 
and within the 14-day deadline for an existing party to seek 
rehearing, the attorney general tendered a petition for re-
hearing  en  banc.    Id.,  at  210–227;  Fed.  Rules  App.  Proc. 
35(c) and 40(a)(1). 
  By the same divided vote as before, the panel denied the 
attorney general’s motion to intervene, citing Circuit prec-
edent under which intervention on appeal is judged by es-
sentially  the  same  standard  as  intervention  in  district 
court.  See Blount-Hill v. Zelman, 636 F. 3d 278, 283 (CA6 
2011).    Applying  that  standard,  the  panel  majority  held, 
first, that the attorney general’s motion was untimely be-
cause  it  was  not  filed  until  years  of  litigation  had  passed