Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-248_4fc5.pdf
Page Number: 19

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

15 

Opinion of the Court 

when  interests  “overla[p]  fully.”  Brief  for  State  Respond-
ents  26.  Where  “the  absentee’s  interest  is  similar  to,  but 
not identical with, that of one of the parties,” that normally
is not enough to trigger a presumption of adequate repre-
sentation.  7C Wright & Miller § 1909.  And again, a pre-
sumption like that holds no purchase here.  North Carolina 
has authorized different agents to defend its practical inter-
ests precisely because, thanks to how it has structured its
government,  each  may  be  expected  to  vindicate  different
points of view on the State’s behalf.  For a federal court to 
presume  a  full  overlap  of  interests  when  state  law  more
nearly presumes the opposite would make little sense and 
do much violence to our system of cooperative federalism. 
In cases like ours, state agents may pursue “related” state 
interests, but they cannot be fairly presumed to bear “iden-
tical” ones.  Trbovich, 404 U. S., at 538. 

In  the  end,  to  resolve  this  case  we  need  not  decide 
whether  a  presumption  of  adequate  representation  might 
sometimes be appropriate when a private litigant seeks to
defend a law alongside the government or in any other cir-
cumstance.  We need only acknowledge that a presumption
of  adequate  representation  is  inappropriate  when  a  duly 
authorized state agent seeks to intervene to defend a state
law.  In its en banc decision, the Fourth Circuit reasoned 
that “a proposed intervenor’s governmental status makes a
heightened presumption of adequacy more appropriate, not 
less.”  999 F. 3d, at 933; accord, Planned Parenthood of Wis., 
Inc. v. Kaul, 942 F. 3d 793, 801 (CA7 2019).  But, respect-
fully, that gets things backward.  Any presumption against
intervention  is  especially  inappropriate  when  wielded  to 
displace  a  State’s  prerogative  to  select  which  agents  may
defend  its  laws  and  protect  its  interests.  Normally,  a
State’s chosen representatives should be greeted in federal 
court with respect, not adverse presumptions.  If the inter-
venor in Trbovich faced only a “minimal” burden, it cannot
be  that  duly  designated  state  agents  seeking  to  vindicate