The North Carolina chapter of the NAACP challenged a North Carolina voter-ID law, arguing that it violates the Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act. Although the state attorney general, a Democrat, is already representing the State's interest in the validity of that law, defending its constitutionality in both state and federal court, Republicans Phil Berger, president pro tempore of the state senate, and Tim Moore, speaker of the state house representatives, sought to intervene to also represent the interests of the State.

The district court twice rejected their requests to intervene, and the full (en banc) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit also rejected their request.

Do the two North Carolina legislators have a right to intervene in this case to defend a state voter-ID law?

North Carolina's legislative leaders are entitled to intervene in this litigation. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion of the Court.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) provides, in relevant part, that one has a right to intervene in litigation if they have an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and are "so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede" their ability to protect their interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.

When a State chooses to divide its sovereign authority among different officials and authorize their participation in asuit challenging state law, full consideration of the state's interests may require the involvement of various officials. Intervention by the legislators neither violates the North Carolina Constitution nor gives them authority beyond what the law already provides them. The existing parties do not adequately represent the legislators' interest, as the presumption of adequate representation applies only in cases where interests fully overlap, which is not the case here. Thus, the legislators have a right to intervene in the litigation.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, arguing that the Court erroneously presumed that a State is inadequately represented in federal court unless whomever state law designates as astate's representative is allowed to intervene and incorrectly implied that the attorney general's defense of the constitutionality of the voting law at issue here fell below a minimal standard of adequacy.

Was 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?

Was the 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?

Where Petitioners entitled to intervene as of right in this litigation?