Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center
The Facts
Kentucky enacted restrictions on the dilation and evacuation abortion procedure. The Kentucky Attorney General (then Andy Beshear) did not defend the law when he disagreed with it; the Health Secretary defended it and lost at the Sixth Circuit. After Beshear was elected Governor, he replaced the Health Secretary, and the new cabinet secretary declined to appeal. Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron sought to intervene to appeal on behalf of the Commonwealth. The Sixth Circuit denied intervention. Cameron sought Supreme Court review.
The Application
The Court found that Cameron satisfied Rule 24(a)(2)'s requirements because defending Kentucky's D&E statute presented a direct, cognizable interest for the state AG, namely, the Commonwealth's stake in preserving its own legislation. The decisive factual circumstance was the Health Secretary's settlement and refusal to appeal: once the original state defendant abandoned the appellate process, the adverse Sixth Circuit ruling would have become final without state representation, thereby impairing the Commonwealth's interest in defending the law. Following Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, the Court held that the state's right to defend its own statutes belongs to the state itself, not to any single officer; when one official declines to defend, another authorized state representative may intervene. Cameron's intervention was therefore necessary and proper to preserve the state's appellate remedy and its ability to vindicate its own legislation.
The Conclusion
**The 2022 ruling allowed AG Cameron to continue the appeal, which ultimately led to a Sixth Circuit ruling upholding the D&E restriction after Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) was decided.** The case clarified that state AGs may intervene to defend state law even where other state officials have abandoned the defense.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center (2022) held 8-1 that Kentucky's Attorney General could intervene in a federal court case to defend a state abortion regulation after the state health secretary, the original defendant, had settled the case and did not appeal an adverse ruling. The decision reaffirmed that state officials with a direct interest in defending state law have a right to intervene, even when the original government representative has chosen not to appeal.
Facts
Kentucky enacted restrictions on the dilation and evacuation abortion procedure. The Kentucky Attorney General (then Andy Beshear) did not defend the law when he disagreed with it; the Health Secretary defended it and lost at the Sixth Circuit. After Beshear was elected Governor, he replaced the Health Secretary, and the new cabinet secretary declined to appeal. Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron sought to intervene to appeal on behalf of the Commonwealth. The Sixth Circuit denied intervention. Cameron sought Supreme Court review.
Issue
Whether Kentucky's Attorney General had a right to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 to appeal an adverse ruling after the original state defendant, the Health Secretary, settled and did not appeal.
Rule
FRCP 24(a)(2) allows intervention of right when a movant claims 'an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action' and disposition of the action may impair that interest. State attorneys general have a legally cognizable interest in defending state statutes. Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill (2019) held that the right to defend state law belongs to the state, not any single official.
Analysis
The Court found that Cameron satisfied Rule 24(a)(2)'s requirements because defending Kentucky's D&E statute presented a direct, cognizable interest for the state AG. Namely, the Commonwealth's stake in preserving its own legislation. The decisive factual circumstance was the Health Secretary's settlement and refusal to appeal: once the original state defendant abandoned the appellate process, the adverse Sixth Circuit ruling would have become final without state representation, thereby impairing the Commonwealth's interest in defending the law. Following Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, the Court held that the state's right to defend its own statutes belongs to the state itself, not to any single officer; when one official declines to defend, another authorized state representative may intervene. Cameron's intervention was therefore necessary and proper to preserve the state's appellate remedy and its ability to vindicate its own legislation.
Conclusion
**The 2022 ruling allowed AG Cameron to continue the appeal, which ultimately led to a Sixth Circuit ruling upholding the D&E restriction after Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) was decided.** The case clarified that state AGs may intervene to defend state law even where other state officials have abandoned the defense.
Notes
OT2021. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support