Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-248_4fc5.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

16 

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

state law should have to clear some higher hurdle. 

Setting aside the lower courts’ erroneous presumptions,
the proper resolution of today’s case follows quickly.  Cast-
ing aspersions on no one, this litigation illustrates how di-
vided state governments sometimes warrant participation
by multiple state officials in federal court.  See 999 F. 3d, at 
939–941 (Wilkinson, J., dissenting).  Recall just some of the 
facts of this case.  See Parts I–B and I–C, supra.  When con-
fronted  with  a  motion  for  a  preliminary  injunction,  the
Board declined to offer expert-witness affidavits in support
of S. B. 824, even though its opponent offered many and the
legislative  leaders  sought  to  supplement  the  record  with
their  own.  After  the  District  Court  issued  its  (ultimately 
overturned) injunction, the Board declined to seek a stay.
That  tactical  choice,  motivated  by  the  Board’s  overriding
concern  for  stability  and  certainty,  meant  that  the  State 
could not enforce its new law during a statewide election. 
Throughout, Board members have been appointed and po-
tentially removable by a Governor who vetoed S. B. 824 and 
who  filed  his  own  briefs  in  this  litigation  calling  the  law 
“unconstitutional” and arguing that it “should never go into 
effect.”  See  supra,  at  6.  And  at  all  times,  the  Board  has 
been  represented  by  an  attorney  general  who,  though  no
doubt a vigorous advocate for his clients’ interests, is also 
an elected official who may feel allegiance to the voting pub-
lic or share the Board’s administrative concerns. 

The  legislative  leaders  seek  to  give  voice  to  a  different 
perspective.
  Their  “primary  objective”  is  not  clarifying 
which law applies.  See supra, at 5.  They are not burdened 
by misgivings about the law’s wisdom.  If allowed to inter-
vene, the legislative leaders say, they will focus on defend-
ing the law vigorously on the merits without an eye to cross-
cutting  administrative  concerns.  And,  they  add,  the 
differences  between  their  interest  and  the  Board’s  in  this 
case demonstrate why state law empowers them to partici-
pate in litigation over the validity of state legislation—alive