Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center

In 2018, Kentucky enacted House Bill 454, requiring abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges and banning a common second-trimester procedure. EMW Women's Surgical Center challenged the law, and a federal district court permanently enjoined it. The state health secretary, the named defendant, declined to appeal. Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron then sought to intervene in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to defend the statute. The Sixth Circuit denied his motion, concluding he had waited too long. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and, on March 3, 2022, held 8–1 that the Sixth Circuit should have permitted intervention. The majority, led by Justice Alito, emphasized that Kentucky law expressly authorizes the attorney general to defend state laws when no other state actor will do so, and that Cameron's interests were not adequately represented.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit's judgment by an 8–1 vote. The Court ruled that the court of appeals should have granted Cameron's motion to intervene. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, finding that Cameron had a protectable interest in defending Kentucky's law, that the disposition of the appeal could impair that interest, and that the existing parties no longer adequately represented that interest. The case was remanded for further proceedings. Justice Sotomayor dissented.

Whether the Sixth Circuit abused its discretion in denying Attorney General Cameron's motion to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) to defend a state abortion statute that the original state defendants had chosen not to appeal, and what standards apply when a state attorney general seeks to vindicate the state's interest in federal appellate litigation.

The ruling strengthened the ability of state attorneys general to intervene in federal litigation to defend state laws that other executive branch officials have declined to appeal. It had an immediate impact on abortion litigation, allowing politically accountable attorneys general to step in when appointed health officials refuse to defend controversial restrictions. More broadly, the decision affirmed a state's sovereign authority to structure its internal legal representation and affected the separation-of-powers balance between state executive officers, reinforcing the attorney general's role as a primary guardian of state statutes in federal courts.