Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-248_4fc5.pdf
Page Number: 11

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

Order in North Carolina State Conference of NAACP v. Ray-
mond,  No.  20–1092  (CA4,  Mar.  27,  2020),  ECF  Doc.  43.
Meanwhile, the Governor filed an amicus brief contending 
that the District Court had not gone far enough:  “[The] pre-
liminary  injunctio[n]  should  be  made  permanent,  and  . . . 
this unconstitutional law should never go into effect.”  App. 
844.  After considering all the submissions before it, a unan-
imous panel of the Court of Appeals largely agreed with the 
legislative leaders and reversed.  North Carolina State Con-
ference of NAACP v. Raymond, 981 F. 3d 295, 298 (2020).
The panel held that the District Court had abused its dis-
cretion  in  issuing  the  preliminary  injunction  because  the 
record  contained  insufficient  evidence  to  show  that  S. B. 
824  violated  the  Federal  Constitution.  In  particular,  the 
panel explained that North Carolina’s law “is more protec-
tive of the right to vote than other states’ voter ID laws that 
courts have approved.”  Id., at 310.  Later, the Court of Ap-
peals denied rehearing en banc; no judge noted a dissent.
Any further District Court proceedings were thus left to un-
fold without a preliminary injunction in place.

Separately and hoping to participate in those future pro-
ceedings, the legislative leaders asked another panel of the 
Fourth Circuit to vacate the District Court’s decision deny-
ing  their  motion  to  intervene.  The  legislative  leaders
stressed that state law expressly authorizes them to partic-
ipate in cases like this one, and they argued that they sat-
isfied all the requirements for intervention as a matter of 
right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2).  For 
its part, the Court of Appeals again agreed with the legisla-
tive leaders, this time holding that the District Court had 
erred when denying them leave to intervene.  970 F. 3d 489, 
503–504, 506 (2020). 

Eventually,  however,  the  Fourth  Circuit  decided  to  re-
hear the matter en banc and changed course.  A nine-judge
majority ruled that the legislative leaders were not entitled
to  intervene  in  District  Court  proceedings  because  they