Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-248_4fc5.pdf
Page Number: 23

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

1 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 21–248 
_________________ 

PHILIP E. BERGER, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. NORTH 
CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE 
NAACP, ET AL. 

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

[June 23, 2022] 

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, dissenting. 
When  an  individual  or  entity  moves  to  intervene  in  a
pending  lawsuit  under  Federal  Rule  of  Civil  Procedure 
24(a)(2), a federal court is not authorized to grant the mo-
tion if an existing party to the case adequately represents
the  movant’s  interests.  Today,  however,  the  Court  holds 
that two leaders of the North Carolina General Assembly
are entitled to intervene as a matter of right to represent
the  State’s  interest  in  defending  the  constitutionality  of 
North  Carolina  law,  even  though  that  interest  is  already 
being ably pursued on the State’s behalf by an existing state
party to the litigation.  The Court’s decision is wrong for two 
reasons.    First,  the  Court  goes  astray  by  creating  a  pre-
sumption that a State is inadequately represented in fed-
eral  court  unless  whomever  state  law  designates  as  a 
State’s representative is allowed to intervene, even where 
the  interests  that  the  intervenors  seek  to  represent  are
identical to those of an existing party.  That presumption of 
inadequacy improperly permits state law, as opposed to fed-
eral  law,  to  determine  whether  an  existing  party  ade-
quately represents a particular interest.  Second, the Court 
errs by implying that the attorney general’s defense of the
constitutionality of the voting law at issue here fell below a 
minimal standard of adequacy.  I respectfully dissent.