Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C., et al.
Issues
Whether a state attorney general, who was voluntarily dismissed and bound by a final judgment, is allowed to become a party in the case to defend the state law at issue when no other state representative will.
This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether it is appropriate for an attorney general to intervene in a case when no other governmental representative will defend the state law, despite the attorney general’s voluntary dismissal and contradictory stipulations in the case. After the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to prohibit the enforcement of a Kentucky law, the Secretary of Kentucky's Cabinet for Health and Family chose not to appeal the Sixth Circuit’s decision and Attorney General Daniel Cameron (“Cameron”) moved to intervene as a third-party to continue defending the law. Cameron argues that the court should consider the importance of the state’s legal interests, maintaining that states have the authority to decide who represents them in court, and that the Sixth Circuit abused its discretion by not permitting his intervention. EMW Women’s Surgical Center (“EMW”) counters that Kentucky’s interests were protected because the Attorney General’s office left the initial suit voluntarily and agreed to be bound by the final judgment. EMW contends that the Attorney General’s office should not receive unique exemptions from procedural rules, with intervention being appropriate at the appellate level in rare circumstances only. The outcome of this case has important implications for separation of power between the state and the federal government and for the court’s application of procedural law to state-government litigants.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether a state attorney general vested with the power to defend state law should be permitted to intervene after a federal court of appeals invalidates a state statute when no other state actor will defend the law
Respondents EMW Women's Surgical Center ("EMW") sought to strike down Kentucky legislation, House Bill 454 (“H.B. 454”), which functionally disallowed the use of the “dilation and evacuation” abortion procedure, absent a narrow exception for medical emergencies. EMW Women's Surgical Ctr., P.S.C. v. Friedlander, at 791.
Additional Resources
- Ian Millhiser, The Stakes in the Supreme Court’s new abortion case, explained, Vox (March 29, 2021).
- Josh Blackman, The Court Punts by Granting Cert in Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, Reason (March 29, 2021).