Berger v. North Carolina State Conf. of NAACP (21-248)

argument 21-248

Berger v. North Carolina State Conf. of NAACP

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 11m 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 8 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the core dispute over intervention in Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument next in case twenty-one two forty eight, Burger against North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP.

James B. 0:08

Mr Thompson. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, North Carolina law designates the State as necessary parties, the state the petitioners as agents of the State and as necessary parties in all actions challenging State statutes. When such actions are filed in State Court, the petitioners are defendants and necessary parties. This lawsuit, however, was filed in federal court. And when the petitioners sought to intervene, they were denied, and a strong presumption was applied against their intervention. This outcome should be reversed for two reasons. First, under Turbovich, we are entitled to intervene. The state respondents have candidly and forthrightly acknowledged that they have a primary objective in receiving clear guidance on what law, if any, will need to be enforced.

James B. 1:04

And because that administrative responsibility and interest may not over Ways dictate precisely the same approach to litigation as our interest in defending the law every step of the way, we are entitled to intervene under Turbovich. Second, this case presents foundational issues of federalism. This court recently in Cameron held there are deep constitutional considerations implicated when a federal court is called to pass upon the constitutional. of a state law. And thus a federal court must account for a state designating multiple officials to defend its sovereign interests. There is no basis in this case for a federal court to s to second guess a state's decision that it needs a representative exclusively focused on vindicating state law.

James B. 1:54

I welcome the Court's questions.

John G. Roberts 1:58

You said there's no basis in this case. Is there a situation where you would think it was appropriate for the Federal District Court to deny intervention where the state law provided specifically that particular state officers be afforded that right.

James B. 2:14

Well, Your Honor, uh, we'd have to go through the the multi-step factors of number one, Donaldson. We'd need to make sure it's a significantly protectable interest uh that was identified. Number two, we'd need to look at Hollingsworth and make sure there was a correct uh assignment of that agent and creation of that agency relationship. And then under Turbovich, there would need to be an assessment as to whether there was someone else already in the case. that had that identical interest and didn't have another interest that was competing at, tugging at, the interest uh that they were advocating. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

John G. Roberts 2:48

Well we often see in these cases a as here, sort of the political uh disagreement between the uh two purported uh representatives uh of the State. And is there a situation where that is the claim uh uh for the necessity for intervention, you see a situation where that would be second guessed by the uh

James B. 3:10

federal court? Well well, I can see, Your Honor, where that could be relevant. Here, we don't need to point to Governor Cooper's involvement in the case to win the intervention motion, but we would point out that Governor Cooper has been an implacable foe of this law. And that's not to criticize him. Reasonable people can disagree about contentious issues of public policy, but he has said at J.A. 844 to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in this This very case, quote, this unconstitutional law should never go into effect, close quote. And he has also claimed for himself the authority to fire each and every member of the Board of State elections. So he would not be an adequate representative. Now, they say, my friends on the other side say, well, we have four-cause removal protection.

James B. 3:57

We can't be fired by Governor Cooper, and we don't think they're right. right about that. But even if there were they were, that would just mean that there are unaccountable unelected officials in charge of this paramount interest.

Elena Kagan 4:09

Counsel, two things. One is what do you do with Wallace Sveedbone, a North Carolina Supreme Court case that says the state led uh legislature cannot represent the state, and I thought that that was the basis of the governor's claim that the law was unconstitu that