Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-601_bq7c.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

  Respondents advance one additional argument on the is-
sue  of  prejudice.    They  claim  that  intervention  would  un-
fairly deprive them of a “reasonable expectation” stemming 
from  Governor  Beshear’s  election.    Brief  for  Respondents 
31.    Respondents  contend  that  Governor  Beshear  had  a 
“history of refusing to defend abortion restrictions” and that 
they therefore reasonably thought that the secretary, who 
was appointed by the Governor, would not pursue “extraor-
dinary  forms  of  relief  if  they  prevailed  in  their  appeal.”  
Ibid. 
  The  loss  of  this  sort  of  claimed  expectation  does  not 
amount to unfair prejudice in the sense relevant here.  Re-
spondents  may  have  hoped  that  the  new  Governor  would 
appoint  a secretary  who  would  give  up  the  defense of  HB 
454, but they had no legally cognizable expectation that the 
secretary  he  chose  or  the  newly  elected  attorney  general 
would  do so  before  all available forms  of  review  had  been 
exhausted. 

* 

  * 

  * 
  For these reasons, the Court of Appeals erred in denying 
the  attorney  general’s  motion  to  intervene.    That  court’s 
judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered.