Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-248_4fc5.pdf
Page Number: 29.0

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

7 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

a federal court would bat an eye if a state required its at-
torney general to withdraw from his representation and al-
low  another  entity,  including  a  legislature,  to  take  over  a
case”).  We also agree that state law can create a protectable 
interest in the resolution of a federal lawsuit.  See Maine v. 
Taylor, 477 U. S. 131, 137 (1986) (“[A] State clearly has a
legitimate interest in the continued enforceability of its own
statutes”).2 

I part ways with the Court because it is clear that Rule
24(a)(2) does not give a State the right to have multiple par-
ties represent the same interest.  Rather, Rule 24(a)(2) ex-
plicitly authorizes additional parties to intervene in pend-
ing  litigation  only  if  their  interests  are  not  adequately 
represented by an existing party. 

The Court instead concludes that the undisputed princi-
ples discussed above establish a presumption that a State’s
interests are not adequately represented “if [any of] its duly
authorized representatives are excluded from participating
in federal litigation challenging state law.”  Ante, at 9 (stat-
ing that “federal courts should rarely question that a State’s
interests will be practically impaired or impeded” in these
circumstances).  In the Court’s view, because North Caro-
lina law provides that “[t]he Speaker of the House of Rep-
resentatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate” 
“shall  jointly  have  standing  to  intervene  on  behalf  of  the 
General  Assembly  as  a  party  in  any  judicial  proceeding 
challenging  a  North  Carolina  statute  or  provision  of  the
North  Carolina  Constitution,”  N. C.  Gen.  Stat.  Ann.  §1–
72.2(b),  “a  federal  court  should  find  the  interest  require-
ment of Rule 24(a)(2) satisfied,” ante, at 11.  The Court so 

—————— 

2 We also agree that there is no need to decide whether a presumption 
of adequate representation is sometimes appropriate, ante, at 15, or what 
standard of review governs our analysis, ante, at 18, n.  I disagree, how-
ever, with the Court’s conclusion that the courts below erred under any
standard and that reversal is required.