Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
Overview
Overview
The Supreme Court considered whether a state may intervene as of right to defend the constitutionality of one of its statutes when a federal court enjoins that statute and the state's own officer, who is a party to the case, declines to appeal and chooses not to defend the law, addressing a tension between federal civil procedure rules and the state's interest in having its enactments defended.
The Facts
Facts
North Carolina's General Assembly drew a congressional district map that was challenged as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP won a preliminary injunction against the map. The state's Attorney General declined to appeal, choosing not to defend the law. The General Assembly sought to intervene as a party to defend the map on appeal, but the Fourth Circuit denied intervention, holding the legislature lacked a sufficient interest separate from the executive branch's.
The Issue
Issue
Whether a state legislature has the right to intervene in federal litigation to defend the constitutionality of state laws when the state's executive officers, who are already defendants, decline to appeal or defend the challenged statutes.
The Rules
Rule
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) permits intervention as of right when a person 'claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action' and the existing parties may not adequately represent that interest. States have a significant interest in the defense of their own laws. When state executive officers decline to defend state statutes, the question is whether the legislature may step in to vindicate the state's interest.
The Application
Analysis
The North Carolina legislature satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) because it possessed a direct interest in the redistricting statute at issue. As the body responsible for drawing the congressional map, it had a concrete stake in defending the constitutionality of its own enactment. The Court determined that the existing defendant, the state Attorney General, could not adequately represent the legislature's interest, since the Attorney General had affirmatively declined to appeal and defend the law, demonstrating an actual conflict between the executive's litigation position and the legislature's desire to vindicate the statute. By refusing to defend despite being a named defendant, the Attorney General created precisely the inadequacy of representation that Rule 24(a)(2) contemplates. A situation where an existing party's interests diverged from the intervenor's. The majority therefore concluded that North Carolina law vested the legislature with independent authority to represent the state's institutional interest in the validity of its laws when the executive branch abdicated that defense.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
Decided June 23, 2022. The Court held 8-1 that the North Carolina General Assembly had a right to intervene to defend the state's redistricting law when the state Attorney General declined to do so. The majority held that North Carolina law gave the legislature authority to represent the state's interest in litigation over state statutes, and that the state's defense was inadequately represented by an executive officer who refused to appeal.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support