Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-248_4fc5.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

“authori[zed] under state law to represent the State’s inter-
ests” in federal court could defend state laws there as par-
ties.  484 U. S. 72, 75, 81–82 (1987).

These  principles  and  precedents  are  dispositive  here.
North  Carolina  has  expressly  authorized  the  legislative 
leaders to defend the State’s practical interests in litigation 
of this sort.  State law provides that “[t]he Speaker of the 
House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore 
of the Senate, as agents of the State, by and through coun-
sel of their choice,” “shall jointly have standing to intervene 
on behalf of the General Assembly as a party in any judicial
proceeding challenging a North Carolina statute or provi-
sion of the North Carolina Constitution.”  N. C. Gen. Stat. 
Ann. § 1–72.2(b).  Even beyond these instructions, the State
has made plain that it considers the leaders of the General 
Assembly “necessary parties” to suits like this one.  § 120– 
32.6(b).

Tellingly, the Board seems to agree that, if North Caro-
lina law authorizes participation by the legislative leaders
on behalf of the State, a federal court should find the inter-
est requirement of Rule 24(a)(2) satisfied.  Brief for State 
Respondents 20, 28.  The Board submits only that, in fact,
North Carolina law does not afford the legislative leaders 
that authority.  Id., at 49–50.  But while we are hardly the 
final arbiters of North Carolina law, the Board’s argument 
seems more than a little difficult to square with the express 
statutory language above.  One of these provisions is even
entitled, “General Assembly Acting on Behalf of the State
of  North  Carolina  in  Certain  Actions.”    § 120–32.6(b).    It 
provides that the legislative leaders may defend state laws
“as agents of the State.”  Ibid. 

Retreating, the Board argues alternatively that the stat-
utes authorizing the legislative leaders to participate here 
violate the State Constitution by usurping authority vested
in the executive branch.  Brief for State Respondents 50–
55; N. C. Const., Art. I, § 6.  But the Board’s logic is hard to