Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-248_4fc5.pdf
Page Number: 4

4 

BERGER v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE 
CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP 
Syllabus 

classes  of  cases.    But  even  taken  on  their  own  terms,  none  of  these 
presumptions applies to cases like this one.  For instance, some lower 
courts  have  adopted  a  presumption  of  adequate  representation  in 
cases where a movant’s interests are identical to those of an existing 
party.  But even the Board concedes that this presumption applies only
when interests fully overlap.

This litigation illustrates how divided state governments sometimes 
warrant participation by multiple state officials in federal court.  Here, 
the legislative leaders seek to give voice to a perspective different from 
the Board’s.  They assert an unalloyed interest in vindicating state law
from constitutional challenge, without an eye to crosscutting adminis-
trative concerns—concerns that have colored the Board’s defense thus 
far.  The NAACP worries that allowing the legislative leaders to inter-
vene could “make trial management impossible.”  While a proliferation 
of motions to intervene may be a cause for concern in some cases, this 
case is not one.  Federal courts routinely handle cases involving mul-
tiple officials sometimes represented by different attorneys taking dif-
ferent  positions.   See,  e.g.,  Whole  Woman’s  Health  v.  Jackson,  595 
U. S. ___.  Whatever additional burdens adding the legislative leaders 
to this case may pose, those burdens fall well within the bounds of eve-
ryday case management.  Pp. 13–19. 

999 F. 3d 915, reversed. 

GORSUCH,  J.,  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  in  which  ROBERTS, 
C. J.,  and  THOMAS,  BREYER,  ALITO,  KAGAN,  KAVANAUGH,  and  BARRETT, 
JJ., joined.  SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion.