Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-248_4fc5.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2021 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

BERGER ET AL. v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE 
CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP ET AL. 

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

No. 21–248.  Argued March 21, 2022—Decided June 23, 2022 

In  2018,  North  Carolina  amended  its  Constitution  to  provide  that
“[v]oters offering to vote in person shall present photographic identifi-
cation.”  Art. VI, §2(4).  To implement the constitutional mandate, the
General Assembly approved S. B. 824.  The Governor vetoed the bill, 
the General Assembly overrode the veto, and S. B. 824 went into effect. 
The state conference of the NAACP then sued the Governor and mem-
bers of the State Board of Elections (collectively, Board), a state agency 
whose members are both appointed and removable by the Governor. 
The NAACP alleged that S. B. 824 offends the Federal Constitution. 
The Board was defended by the State’s attorney general, who, like the
Governor, is an independently elected official.  The attorney general at
the time was a former state senator who voted against an earlier voter-
ID law and filed a declaration in support of a legal challenge against
it.  The speaker of the State House of Representatives and president 
pro  tempore  of  the  State  Senate  (hereinafter,  legislative  leaders)
moved  to  intervene,  arguing  that,  without  their  participation,  im-
portant state interests would not be adequately represented in light of
the  Governor’s  opposition  to  S. B.  824,  the  Board’s  allegiance  to  the 
Governor and its tepid defense of S. B. 824 in parallel state-court pro-
ceedings, and the attorney general’s opposition to earlier voter-ID ef-
forts. 

The District Court applied a presumption that the legislative lead-
ers’ interests would be adequately represented by the Governor, Board,
and the attorney general and denied their motion to intervene.  Unsat-
isfied with the Board’s defense following the denial of their motion, the
legislative leaders sought to lodge an amicus brief and accompanying
materials, but the District Court refused to consider them, struck them