Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1775_4425.pdf
Page Number: 2

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

1 

ROBERTS, C. J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–1775 
_________________ 

ARIZONA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CITY AND COUNTY 
OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

[June 15, 2022] 

CHIEF  JUSTICE  ROBERTS,  with  whom  JUSTICE  THOMAS, 

JUSTICE ALITO, and JUSTICE GORSUCH join, concurring. 

This  case  involves  a  regulation  known  as  the  Public 
Charge Rule, promulgated by the Department of Homeland
Security in 2019.  See 84 Fed. Reg. 41292 (2019).  The Rule 
set out the test the Department planned to use to determine 
whether an applicant for admission into the country or ad-
justment to lawful permanent resident status is “likely at 
any time to become a public charge,” which would make him 
ineligible.  8 U. S. C. §1182(a)(4)(A).  Several parties filed 
lawsuits arguing that the Rule was unlawful because it de-
fined “public charge” too broadly. 

We granted certiorari in this case not to address the mer-
its  of  that  argument,  but  to  decide  whether  the  petition-
ers—13 States which support the Rule—should have been 
permitted to intervene in this litigation to defend the Rule’s
legality in the Court of Appeals.  Petitioners argue that the
answer is yes, in light of the Government’s actions. 

When this and other suits challenging the Rule were first 
brought in 2019, the Government defended it.  And when 
multiple  lower  courts,  including  the  District  Court  here, 
found  the  Rule  unlawful,  the  Government  appealed  those
decisions.  After a change in administrations, though, the
Government reversed course and opted to voluntarily dis-