The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of state Republican Party leaders in a case nominally about a voter identification law that a lower North Carolina court previously found was passed with "racial discrimination" as a "motivating factor."
The case, Berger v. NC Conference of NAACP, the GOP's theory was that the current trial team simply didn't have their hearts in defending the law passed by the GOP.
Generally, States themselves are immune from suit in federal court. So usually a plaintiff will sue the individual state officials most responsible for enforcing the law in question and seek injunctive or declaratory relief against them.
Gorsuch begins with the text of the rule in question:
On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who...claims an interest relating to the property or transaction...that may be practically impaired or impeded... unless the intervener adequately represents that interest.
A recent North Carolina law allows the legislature to intervene in lawsuits such as the one the NAACP filed against the underlying voter law in question.
This allows the majority to elide the Supreme Court's general opposition to allowing various categories of litigants
As for the second question, the majority pens a new bright line rule interpreting federal civil procedure: "a presumption of adequate representation is inappropriate when a duly authorized state agent seeks to intervene to defend a state law."
Any presumption against intervention is especially inappropriate when wielded to displace a State's prerogative to select which agents may defend its laws and protect its interests.
This new rule drew particular ire in the dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/sotomayor-pens-lone-dissent-as-8-1-gorsuch-majority-opinion-allows-state-gop-leaders-to-defend-nc-e2-80-99s-voter-id-law/ar-AAYN4Zb
No comments:
Post a Comment