Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-248_4fc5.pdf
Page Number: 35.0

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

13 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

the litigation should be handled does not make inadequate
the  representation  of  those  whose  interests  are  identical 
with that of an existing party”); accord, Kaul, 942 F. 3d, at 
810–811 (Sykes, J., concurring); Daggett v. Commission on 
Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, 172 F. 3d 104, 
112 (CA1 1999).

Properly  understood,  the  attorney  general’s  representa-
tion  of  state  respondents  satisfies  any  standard  of  ade-
quacy.  As the District Court explained, the attorney gen-
eral “actively and adequately defend[ed] this lawsuit.”  App.
to Pet. for Cert. 189.  He “consistently denied all substan-
tive  allegations  of  unconstitutionality  in  this  case.”  Ibid. 
(internal quotation marks omitted).  And he moved to dis-
miss  the  suit  on  federalism  grounds,  filed  an  “expansive
brief ” opposing NAACP respondents’ motion for a prelimi-
nary injunction on the merits, and has moved for summary 
judgment on all claims.  Ibid. 

The  Court  faults  the  attorney  general  for  emphasizing
“administrative concerns” in his brief on the merits and for 
not  offering  expert  reports  to  support  his  opposition  to  a 
preliminary  injunction.  See  ante,  at  16.  Petitioners  also 
take issue with the attorney general’s decision not to seek 
a stay of the District Court’s preliminary injunction pend-
ing appeal.  Brief for Petitioners 12, 50.  But these are pre-
cisely the sort of strategic decisions that government attor-
neys  make  every  day;  in  fact,  petitioners  themselves 
declined  to  seek  a  stay  in  the  parallel  litigation  in  state 
court.  The  Court’s  retrospective  criticism  of  the  attorney
general’s litigation strategy is insufficient to establish that
state respondents inadequately represented the State’s in-
terests.  See  Saldano  v.  Roach,  363  F. 3d  545,  555  (CA5
2004) (“Simply because the [intervenor] would have made a 
different decision does not mean that the Attorney General
is  inadequately  representing  the  State’s  interest—and
hence, the [intervenor’s] claimed interest—especially since