Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 108.0

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

27 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

recited  at  her  public  school,  but  the  child’s  mother  main-
tained that her daughter had “no objection either to reciting 
or hearing” the full pledge.  Id., at 5, 9.  The Court held that 
the father lacked prudential standing, because “the inter-
ests of this parent and this child are not parallel and, in-
deed,  are  potentially  in  conflict.”  Id.,  at  15.   The  lower 
court’s judgment (based, as it was, on a presentation by a
conflicted party) was therefore reversed. 

Newdow recognized the seriousness of conflicts of interest 
in the specific context of third-party claims, but the law is 
always sensitive to potential conflicts when a party sues in
a  representative  capacity.    Parties  naturally  “tailor  their
own presentation to the interest that each of them has,” and
a  conflict  therefore  creates  “a  risk  that  the  party  will  not 
provide adequate representation of the interest of the ab-
sentee.”    See  7C  Wright  &  Miller  §1909.    Thus,  in  class-
action  suits,  Federal  Rule  of  Civil  Procedure  23(a)(4)  de-
mands that the named plaintiff possess “the same interest
and suffer the same injury” as class members. General Tel-
ephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U. S. 147, 156 (1982) 
(internal quotation marks omitted). That requirement, we 
have said, “serves to uncover conflicts of interest between 
named parties and the class they seek to represent.”  Am-
chem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U. S. 591, 625 (1997).
Similarly,  under  Federal  Rule  of  Civil  Procedure  17(c),  a 
party representing a minor or incompetent person may be 
replaced if the representative has conflicting interests.  See 
Sam M. v. Carcieri, 608 F. 3d 77, 86 (CA1 2010); 6A Wright 
& Miller §1570.  And of course, an attorney cannot repre-
sent a client if their interests conflict.13 

D 
The conflict of interest inherent in a case like this is rea-
son enough to reject third-party standing, and our standard 
—————— 

13 See,  e.g.,  ABA  Model  Rules  of  Professional  Conduct  1.7–1.9,  1.18 

(2016).