- Court: United States Supreme Court
- Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
- Date Filed: June 23, 2022
- Case #: 21-248
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Gorsuch, J. for the Court; Roberts, C.J.; Thomas, J.; Breyer, J.; Alito, J.; Kagan, J.; Kavanaugh, J.; and Barrett, J. joined. Sotomayor, J. dissenting.
- Full Text Opinion
North Carolina amended its Constitution to require photographic identification to vote, the Governor vetoed, the legislature overrode the veto. The NAACP sued the Governor saying the amendment offends the U.S. Constitution. North Carolina’s Attorney General filed a declaration in support of the legal challenge. North Carolina’s legislative leadership moved to intervene stating the state’s interests would not be adequately represented in light of the Governor’s opposition to the amendment. North Carolina’s legislative leaders are entitled to intervene in the litigation. FRCP 24(a)(2) provides that (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 the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest,” (3) “unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.” A state possesses a legitimate interest in the continued enforcement of its own statutes. North Carolina’s legislative leaders have standing to intervene on behalf of the legislature as per North Carolina’s statutes. Adequate representation is not present for the state because the legislative leaders seek to give voice to another perspective otherwise not present from the state government. REVERSED.