Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P. S. C.
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P. S. C. and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P. S. C..
The Supreme Court reviewed whether the Sixth Circuit should have allowed Kentucky's Attorney General to intervene in a case challenging a state abortion law. The Attorney General sought to defend the law after the Health and Family Services Secretary decided not to pursue further appeals. The Court found that the Attorney General had a legitimate interest in defending the state's law and should have been permitted to intervene.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P. S. C..
The Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in denying the attorney general's motion to intervene.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P. S. C.. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why State Sovereign Immunity is relevant to Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P. S. C.
The case involves the state's interest in defending its own laws and the authority of state officials to intervene in federal court to protect state interests.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)A State 'clearly has a legitimate interest in the continued enforceability of its own statutes,' Maine v. Taylor, 477 U. S. 131, 137, and a State's opportunity to defend its laws in federal court should not be lightly cut off.
-
Why Standing is relevant to Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P. S. C.
The case addresses whether the Attorney General should be allowed to intervene in the appeal, which is related to the concept of standing and who has the right to participate in a case.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Court of Appeals erred in denying the attorney general's motion to intervene.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P. S. C.
The decision involves procedural aspects of intervention and the rights of parties to be heard in the appellate process.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The panel's assessment of the timeliness of the attorney general's motion to intervene was mistaken.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P. S. C. that support the summary and concepts above.
The Court of Appeals erred in denying the attorney general's motion to intervene.
A State 'clearly has a legitimate interest in the continued enforceability of its own statutes.'
The attorney general reserved 'all rights, claims, and defenses . . . in any appeals arising out of this action.'
