Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-248_4fc5.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

6 

BERGER v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE 
CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP 
Opinion of the Court 

vent the Board from enforcing S. B. 824 in upcoming elec-
tions.  By this point, the District Court had dismissed the
Governor from the suit.  Only the Board members, repre-
sented by the attorney general, remained as defendants.  In 
support  of  its  motion  for  injunctive  relief,  the  NAACP  of-
fered five expert reports.  In reply, the Board did not oppose 
the motion on timeliness grounds even though the NAACP 
had waited nine months before seeking what it described as
critical emergency relief.  See App. 311–313; Memorandum
of Law in No. 1:18–cv–1034 (MDNC, Sept. 17, 2019), ECF 
Doc. 73.  Nor did the Board produce competing expert re-
ports.  Instead, it supplied a single affidavit from its execu-
tive director and stressed again the need for clarity about 
which law to apply.  App. 312.  Once more unsatisfied with 
the  vigor  of  the  Board’s  response,  the  legislative  leaders 
sought to lodge an amicus brief, five expert reports, and sev-
eral other declarations.  At the end of the day, however, the
District Court refused to consider the amicus brief and ac-
companying  materials,  struck  them  from  the  record,  and 
granted  a  preliminary  injunction  barring  enforcement  of 
S. B.  824.  North  Carolina  State  Conference  of  NAACP  v. 
Cooper, 430 F. Supp. 3d 15, 54 (MDNC 2019). 

C 
The Fourth Circuit took up the District Court’s prelimi-
nary  injunction  and  intervention  rulings  in  separate  ap-
peals  before  separate  panels.  While  these  appeals  were
pending, the Board did not seek an interim stay of the Dis-
trict  Court’s  preliminary  injunction.    Apparently,  it  chose 
not to do so “due to the disruptive effect such relief would
have had on” election administration.  App. 366, n. 8.  As a 
result, S. B. 824 was not enforced during the State’s March
2020 primary election.

In the appeal concerning the District Court’s preliminary
injunction ruling, the legislative leaders sought leave to in-
tervene and the Fourth Circuit granted their motion.  See