Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-248_4fc5.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

2 

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

Suppose  someone  seeks  to  attack  a  state  law  on  the 
ground that it is inconsistent with the Federal Constitution. 
Generally, States themselves are immune from suit in fed-
eral  court.  See  Sossamon  v.  Texas,  563  U. S.  277,  284 
(2011).  So usually a plaintiff will sue the individual state 
officials most responsible for enforcing the law in question 
and seek injunctive or declaratory relief against them.  See 
Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 159–160 (1908).  Despite the
artifice, of course, a State will as a practical matter often 
retain a strong interest in this kind of litigation.  After all, 
however captioned, a suit of this sort can implicate “the con-
tinued enforceability of [the State’s] own statutes.”  Maine 
v. Taylor, 477 U. S. 131, 137 (1986).  To defend its practical 
interests, the State may choose to mount a legal defense of 
the  named  official  defendants  and  speak  with  a  “single
voice,” often through an attorney general.  Virginia House 
of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip
op., at 5).

Still, not every State has structured itself this way.  Some 
have chosen to authorize multiple officials to defend their 
practical interests in cases like these.  See ibid.  North Car-
olina  falls  into  this  camp.  The  State’s  attorney  general 
wields  some  authority  to  represent  individual  official  de-
fendants  in  federal  litigation.  See  Martin  v.  Thornburg, 
320 N. C. 533, 545–546, 359 S. E. 2d 472, 479 (1987); N. C. 
Const., Art. III, §§ 7(1), (2) (establishing the office of attor-
ney  general  and  declaring  that  his  “duties  shall  be  pre-
scribed by law”).  But North Carolina’s General Assembly
has also empowered the leaders of its two legislative houses 
to participate in litigation on the State’s behalf under cer-
tain circumstances and with counsel of their own choosing.
See N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 1–72.2 (2021). 

The reasons why a State might choose to proceed this way 
are understandable enough.  Sometimes leaders in different 
branches  of  government  may  see  the  State’s  interests  at 
stake in litigation differently.  Some States may judge that