INTERVENTION

Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, California

Issues

May an interested state permissibly intervene to defend an immigration rule in court after the United States ceases to defend it and announces that a court ruling vacating the immigration rule will become effective nationwide?

 

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether states should be permitted to intervene to defend a rule when the United States ceases to defend it. Petitioner Arizona argues that the States fulfilled all the requirements for intervention of right and permissive intervention, and, therefore, should be permitted to intervene. Respondent San Francisco counters that the circumstances in this case do not justify intervention of right, and that denying permissive intervention was not an abuse of the Ninth Circuit’s discretion. The outcome of this case will impact government rulemaking as well as governmental and judicial resources.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether states with interests should be permitted to intervene to defend a rule when the United States ceases to defend.

Under federal immigration law, 8 U.S.C.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

Issues

Do state legislators authorized under North Carolina law have a right to intervene to defend the constitutionality of the state’s voter-ID law, even though the Attorney General is representing the state in the litigation; and, must state legislators make a showing of inadequate representation to intervene?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether state legislators have a right to intervene in a lawsuit filed against the state of North Carolina concerning the constitutionality of the state’s voter-ID law when the Attorney General is already representing the state in the matter. Petitioners Philip E. Berger, President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate and Timothy K. Moore, Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives argue that Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) and North Carolina law grant state legislators the right to intervene on behalf of the state in judicial proceedings. Petitioners further maintain that Rule 24 only requires state agents to establish a minimum standard of inadequate representation to intervene in litigation involving their state’s interests. Respondents North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and other North Carolina NAACP branches counter that Rule 24(a)(2) does not allow an additional party to join the case when its interests are identical to the existing party’s interests. Moreover, the Respondents argue that state legislators need to demonstrate a higher standard of inadequacy to show that the Attorney General is inadequately representing the state to join the case. The outcome of this case has important implications for the role of state governments in litigation, future parties that are or will be engaged in litigation with the states, and the judiciary.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

1. Whether a state agent authorized by state law to defend the State’s interest in litigation must overcome a presumption of adequate representation to intervene as of right in a case in which a state official is a defendant?

2. Whether a district court’s determination of adequate representation in ruling on a motion to intervene as of right is reviewed de novo or for abuse of discretion?

3. Whether petitioners Philip Berger, the president pro tempore of the state senate, and Timothy Moore, the speaker of the state house of representatives, are entitled to intervene as of right in this litigation?

In 2018, North Carolina passed Senate Bill 824 (“the Bill”), which required voters to “present one of ten forms of authorized photographic identification” in order to vote. N. Carolina State Conf. of NAACP v.

Additional Resources

 

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to INTERVENTION