Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-248_4fc5.pdf
Page Number: 21.0

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

17 

Opinion of the Court 

as it is to the possibility that different branches of govern-
ment may seek to vindicate different and valuable state in-
terests.  Perhaps recognizing all this, the Fourth Circuit it-
self  allowed  the  legislative  leaders  to  intervene  in  the
appeal from the District Court’s preliminary injunction rul-
ing.  The same result should follow here. 

By way of reply, the NAACP—but not the Board—worries 
that  allowing  the  legislative  leaders  to  intervene  could 
“make trial management impossible.”  Brief for NAACP Re-
spondents 26; but see Tr. of Oral Arg. 64 (noting that the 
Board has “no problem litigating alongside” the legislative 
leaders).  We  are  not  insensitive  to  the  concern.    In  some 
other case, a proliferation of motions to intervene may be a
cause  for  caution.  At  some  point,  too,  it  may  be  that  the 
interests of existing parties will come to overlap fully with 
the interests of any remaining proposed intervenor. 

But that case is not this case.  Not only do the legislative 
leaders bring a distinct state interest to bear on this litiga-
tion.  No one has suggested that a cascade of motions lies
on  the  horizon  here.  Recall  that  the  NAACP  initially
named the Governor as a defendant.  Absent his eventual 
dismissal  from  this  litigation,  the  Governor  might  have
been able to hire his own outside counsel while the attorney
general continued to represent the Board.  See Martin, 320 
N. C., at 547–548, 359 S. E. 2d, at 480.  Introducing the leg-
islative leaders and their counsel after the Governor’s de-
parture  may  not  represent  a  neat  one-for-one  swap.    But 
litigation on this scale is hardly inconsistent with what the
Board and the NAACP originally anticipated.

Nor  is  it  unusual.  In  matters  ranging  from  civil-rights
actions to suits testing the constitutionality of state or fed-
eral  legislation,  federal  courts  routinely  handle  cases  in-
volving multiple officials sometimes represented by differ-
ent  attorneys  taking  different  positions.    See,  e.g.,  Whole 
Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 595 U. S. ___ (2021); Brnovich, 
594  U. S.  ___;  United  States  v.  Windsor,  570  U. S.  744