Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-248_4fc5.pdf
Page Number: 28

6 

BERGER v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE 
CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP 
SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

subject  matter  of  the  litigation,  but  held  (as  to  the  latter 
requirement)  that  this  “purported  interest  in  defending
S.B. 824 on behalf of the State of North Carolina” was “ad-
equately represented by existing parties to the litigation.” 
Id., at 927.  Accordingly, the court concluded that petition-
ers had “no right to intervene in federal court under Rule
24(a)(2).”  Ibid. 

This Court granted certiorari.  595 U. S. ___ (2021). 

II 

At the heart of this case is Rule 24(a)(2), which governs 
intervention as of right.  As relevant here, Rule 24(a)(2) pro-
vides that a court “must permit anyone to intervene” who,
(1) “[o]n timely motion,” (2) “claims an interest relating to
the property or transaction that is the subject of the action,
and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a prac-
tical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect 
its interest,” (3) “unless existing parties adequately repre-
sent that interest.”  This case requires the Court to address
how  state  laws  affect  mandatory  intervention  under  Rule 
24(a)(2).

I begin with points of agreement: The Court and I agree 
that “States may organize themselves in a variety of ways.” 
Ante, at 9; see Bethune-Hill, 587 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., 
at  4–5)  (contrasting  Virginia’s  choice  to  vest  “[a]uthority 
and responsibility for representing the State’s interests in
civil  litigation  . . .  exclusively  with  the  State’s  Attorney
General”  with  other  States’  decisions  to  authorize  other 
agents “to litigate on the State’s behalf ”).  We agree that a 
State  is  free  to  designate  who  will  represent  it  in  federal 
court.  See Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U. S. 693, 710 (2013) 
(observing  that  although  “[t]hat  agent  is  typically  the
State’s  attorney  general,”  States  may  make  a  different
choice); see also Planned Parenthood of Wis., Inc. v. Kaul, 
942 F. 3d 793, 802 (CA7 2019) (“[W]e can see no reason why