Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C. (March 4, 2022, No. 20-601)
The United States Supreme Court issued an important opinion providing guidance regarding the circumstances in which parties may seek to intervene on appeal to protect their interests.
When Kentucky enacted a restrictive abortion law and it was challenged in court, Kentucky’s attorney general was named as a defendant. He stipulated with the plaintiffs to his dismissal from the suit, with the understanding that a different Kentucky official would defend the law’s constitutionality. The district court struck down the law as unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement, the Kentucky official appealed, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. At that point, the Kentucky official announced he did not intend to seek further review. The Attorney General then moved to intervene on appeal to defend the law’s constitutionality. The Sixth Circuit denied the intervention motion, and the Supreme Court granted review.
The Court first held that the appellate court had jurisdiction to consider the intervention motion. It explained that no statute or rule foreclosed appellate jurisdiction in this circumstance, and it refused to establish a claim-processing rule to bar intervention in this type of situation.
On the merits of the intervention issue, the Court looked to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 for the legal standard governing intervention on appeal. Applying Rule 24’s elements, it held that the lower court erred in denying the Attorney General’s motion to intervene because he had a significant constitutional interest in defending the state’s law, he timely moved to intervene as soon as the need arose, and the plaintiffs would suffer no prejudice from his intervention.
