Thread by @lawyersdf

Today's #SCOTUS decision in #Berger is a major victory for legislatures across the country seeking to intervene in litigation to defend their duly enacted laws, especially when the official charged with defending the law might not do so for political or ideological reasons. 🧵 1/

A brief background on the case: The #NorthCarolina legislature enacted a statute authorizing them to intervene in lawsuits to ensure its duly enacted laws are vigorously defended in court after the state AG refused to defend laws in the past. 2/

Prior to this law, the North Carolina Attorney General refused to defend the state's previous #VoterID law because he didn't agree with the policy, and the law was ultimately enjoined. 3/

#Berger originated out of the North Carolina legislature's attempt to intervene to defend the state's current #VoterID law, which is less strict than other voter ID laws upheld by courts. 4/

lawyersdemocracyfund.org/other-issues/s…

The Supreme Court held today that the North Carolina legislature is lawfully authorized to intervene to defend North Carolina’s challenged #VoterID law. 5/

You can read the #SCOTUS opinion in #Berger here: 👇

supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…

Perhaps most importantly, this case dismantles a burdensome standard that intervenors were required to overcome under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to intervene in lawsuits to defend their interests in court. 6/

The Court held, “[A] presumption of adequate representation is inappropriate when a duly authorized state agent seeks to intervene to defend a state law.”

Under the statute in question, the legislature was a duly authorized state agent. 7/

#SCOTUS agreed with LDF's amicus brief, which argued "There is no basis for a federal court to conclude that state officials are adequately defending the law when the state has designated different officials with that determination." 8/

supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/2…

State legislatures are now free to pass laws allowing them to intervene to ensure their duly enacted laws are vigorously defended and that their interests are fully represented. 9/

In a significant win for election fairness, this decision precludes political activists from "select[ing] as their defendants those individual officials they consider most sympathetic to their cause or most inclined to settle favorably and quickly..." 10/

"...All of which would risk a hobbled litigation rather than a full and fair adversarial testing of the State’s interests and arguments.” The Court’s decision today precludes "suing and settling" from happening in the future. 11/

LDF applauds the decision by the Supreme Court and celebrates what this decision will bring forth in the future. 12/