Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-601_bq7c.pdf
Page Number: 5

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–601 
_________________ 

DANIEL CAMERON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 
KENTUCKY, PETITIONER v. EMW WOMEN’S 
SURGICAL CENTER, P. S. C., ET AL. 

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

[March 3, 2022] 

  JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court. 
  This case concerns a state attorney general’s attempt to 
intervene in a federal appellate proceeding for the purpose 
of defending the constitutionality of a state law.  The issue 
arose  after  a  panel  of the  United States  Court  of  Appeals 
for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a decision holding a Kentucky 
statute  unconstitutional.    The  Kentucky  official  who  had 
been defending the law decided not to seek any further re-
view, but the Kentucky attorney general then moved to in-
tervene for the purpose of taking up the defense.  The panel 
denied that motion, but we granted review. 

I 
  In April 2018, the Kentucky Legislature adopted House 
Bill 454 (HB 454), which regulates the abortion procedure 
known as dilation and evacuation.  See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. 
§§311.787(1)–(2)  (West  2021).    EMW  Women’s  Surgical 
Center, a clinic that performs abortions, and two of its doc-
tors filed this action in Federal District Court and sought to 
enjoin  the  enforcement  of  the  new  law.    Their  complaint