## Facts

- Kentucky enacted House Bill 454 (HB 454), regulating the abortion procedure commonly called dilation and evacuation (D&E).
- EMW Women’s Surgical Center and two physicians sued in federal court to block enforcement of HB 454 and named, among others, the Kentucky Attorney General and the Secretary for the Cabinet for Health and Family Services as defendants.
- The plaintiffs stipulated to dismiss the Attorney General without prejudice; the stipulation reserved the Attorney General’s rights “in any appeals” and stated the Attorney General would be bound by the final judgment subject to modification on appeal.
- After a bench trial, the district court held HB 454 unconstitutional and permanently enjoined its enforcement.
- The Secretary appealed to the Sixth Circuit; during the appeal, Kentucky officials changed, and the new Attorney General (Daniel Cameron) appeared as counsel for the Secretary.
- A divided Sixth Circuit panel affirmed the injunction.
- After the panel decision, the Secretary declined to seek rehearing en banc or Supreme Court review.
- The Attorney General then moved to intervene in the Sixth Circuit in his own right to pursue further review and also sought rehearing en banc; the Sixth Circuit denied intervention and rehearing as untimely.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to whether the denial of intervention was error.

## Issues

1. Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in denying, as untimely, the Kentucky Attorney General’s motion to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 to continue appellate litigation after the remaining state defendant declined further review.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held the Sixth Circuit erred in denying the Attorney General’s motion to intervene.
- The Court allowed the Attorney General to intervene to continue defending HB 454 in further appellate proceedings.
- The Court did not address HB 454’s constitutionality.

## Legal Principles

- Timeliness under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 is a flexible, circumstance-specific inquiry; it is not barred solely because a motion is filed after an appellate panel decision.
- A proposed intervenor’s timing is assessed in light of when the intervenor’s interests diverge from existing parties, including when an existing party stops defending the relevant interest.
- Federal courts must account for a state’s sovereign authority to structure who may represent the state’s interests in federal litigation, including at different litigation stages when state law permits.
- Prior dismissal of a state official does not necessarily preclude later intervention, particularly where a stipulation preserves appellate rights and the state official has independent state-law authority to defend a statute.
- Intervention may be appropriate where it does not cause unfair prejudice and primarily permits continuation of appellate review regarding enforcement of a state statute.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the Kentucky Attorney General’s attempt to intervene to pursue further review of an injunction against a state law was timely under Rule 24 given the Secretary’s decision to stop defending the law, and it required federal courts to respect Kentucky’s allocation of authority for representing the state’s interests in court.


Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Ctr., P.S.C., 142 S. Ct. 1002 (2022)