Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-601_bq7c.pdf
Page Number: 32.0

Cite as:  595 U. S. ____ (2022) 

3 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

  Shortly thereafter, the attorney general and the respond-
ents submitted to the District Court a joint stipulation and 
proposed order of dismissal.  The stipulation provided that 
the attorney general “agrees that any final judgment in this 
action  concerning  the  constitutionality  of  HB  454  (2018) 
will be binding on the Office of the Attorney General, sub-
ject  to  any  modification,  reversal  or  vacation  of  the  judg-
ment on appeal.”  ECF Doc. 46, at 2.  It also specified that 
he  reserved  “all  rights,  claims,  and  defenses”  that  were 
available to him, including those related to “whether he is 
a proper party in this action and in any appeals arising out 
of  this  action.”    Id.,  at  1.    The  District  Court  entered  the 
order dismissing the attorney general from the case. 
  The  attorney  general  did  not  participate  in  any  further 
proceedings  before  the District  Court.    The secretary  con-
tinued to defend H. B. 454.  After a 5-day bench trial, the 
District  Court  issued  a  permanent  injunction  against  the 
enforcement of H. B. 454, declaring it unconstitutional un-
der  this  Court’s  precedents.    Subsequently,  the  secretary 
alone filed a notice of appeal.   
  After the secretary’s appeal was fully briefed, but before 
argument,  then-Attorney  General  Beshear  was  elected 
Governor and Daniel Cameron, a Republican, was elected 
as Kentucky’s new attorney general.  Four of the secretary’s 
lawyers moved to withdraw from the case, explaining that 
they would no longer be employed in their current positions.  
Some weeks later, the same four attorneys, now employed 
by the Office of the Attorney General, appeared as counsel 
for the secretary.  Attorney General Cameron also entered 
an appearance as counsel for the secretary.  He did not seek 
to intervene. 
  The Court of Appeals rendered judgment against the sec-
retary, affirming the District Court’s judgment.  After this 
decision, the secretary communicated to the attorney gen-
eral that he did not intend to defend H. B. 454 further by,