Published On: December 24th 2025
Authored By: Parinita Sandhu
Amity Law School
- Case Title: CAMERON V. EMW WOMEN’S SURGICAL CENTER[1]
- Citation: Cameron, Attorney General of Kentucky v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C., et al., 595 U.S. ___ (2022); 142 S. Ct. 1002; 212 L. Ed. 2d 114
- Court: Supreme Court of the United States
- Bench: Justice Samuel Alito, Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Stephen Breyer, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor
- Date of the Judgement: March 03, 2022
- Relevant Provisions/Statutes: Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Kentucky House Bill 454 (HB 454)
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Kentucky House Bill 454 (HB 454) was enacted in 2019, from where this case arose. The legislation had prohibited the dilation and evacuation (D&E) abortion procedure, allowing exceptions solely in cases of medical emergencies. This method is a common procedure followed, which is usually used for the second-trimester abortions of women. This law was challenged by EMW Women’s Surgical Center, who filed a lawsuit against the state officials, which included the Secretary of the Kentucky Health & Family Services. [2]
ISSUES RAISED:
Main issues that were raised in this case are as follows:
1. Whether the Attorney General of Kentucky has a right to intervene in a lawsuit that challenges the state law’s constitutionality after the Secretary of Health & Family Services concluded the defending law.
2. Whether the 6th Circuit erred in determining the Cameron motion to interpose, was untimely and would most importantly prejudice EMW Women’s Surgical Center
3. Whether the implications of allowing the attorney general to interpose in the terms of state interest would broaden the context of abortion rights
ARGUMENTS:
PLAINTIFF (DANIEL CAMERON):
1. The petitioner, Cameron made an argument as the state’s elected Attorney General that he has the right to defend the state laws, that he had a constitutional duty towards the state laws and defend it, which included HB 454. He laid emphasis on the fact that it is important for the state officials to upload the laws that are passed by the legislatures and also stated that the attorney general should be allowed to intervene when the Secretary concluded to defend the law.
2. Daniel Cameron contended his motion as timely as it arose only after the Secretary of State decided not to appeal any further. Cameron also claimed that he only acted promptly within the authority after he assumed the office. He further stated in his argument that it is important for the attorney general to represent the state’s interest.
3. Cameron considered state sovereignty to be very important. According to Cameron, allowing him to intervene would help respect the state sovereignty, which would further ensure that the state of Kentucky had representation in defending its laws against the constitutional challenges. In the argument presented, he argued that the 6th circuit’s decision to deny his intervention would hinder the ability to assert the best interest for the state of Kentucky in the litigation. [3]
RESPONDENT (EMW WOMEN’S SURGICAL CENTER):
1. The respondents in the case, EMW Women’s Surgical Center, argued that Attorney General Cameron’s motion to intervene was untimely as well as it would most importantly prejudice their ability to defend against HB 454. EMW resisted the allowance of intervention at a late stage, which would disrupt the ongoing proceedings and could possibly weaken the rulings given in the past by the lower courts.
2. The respondents in the case made an argument based on lack of authority. According to them, Cameron did not have any standing in the case as he was not a party to the original case when the case first began. This standing by the respondents was maintained. They also argued that Cameron’s late entry would only complicate the matters unnecessarily since procedural rules require the attorney general to be a part of the party from the beginning if he intended to defend the law.
3. In this case, precedents such as Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), Roe v. Wade (1973) and etc, were referred. The respondents proclaimed that the HB 454 was clearly unconstitutional on its face as the same imposes an undue burden over the women who seek abortions. They laid stress on the fact that the courts had already ruled against the law. Therefore, allowing the attorney general to intervene should not change the constitutional analysis.
JUDGEMENT:
The judgement for the case was delivered on 3rd of march, 2022 by the U.S. Supreme court where in the 8-1 bench judgement it reversed the decision of the 6th Circuit, holding that Attorney General Cameron’s motion to intervene should not have been denied. The Supreme court concluded that Daniel Cameron had a very legitimate interest in defending the state’s ;aw and therefore he did have the obligation to intervene in the case. The court also found that Cameron’s motion was given timely, despite what was argued by the other party. The motion was delivered just after the Kentucky Secretary had finished defending House Bill 454.[4] It was held by the court that allowing intervention would not prejudice or disrupt the ongoing proceedings of the EMW Women’s Surgical Center and rather it would ensure that the interests of the state were adequately represented.[5]
RATIO DECIDENDI:
Several principles played a role behind the Supreme Court’s rationale for its decision:
1. The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of state sovereignty and the rights of the state to defend the laws in the court. It laid emphasis over the fact that the state officials that also include the attorney general have a duty to protect the state statutes and defend them when a situation arises.
2. The court noted that the attorney general of the state has a very legitimate interest over the enforcement of the state laws and that the state should have the opportunity to defend its laws when the situation that challenges it arises.
3. The Court took in note the procedural considerations. It addressed the aspects of intervention, saying that the timeliness is a major factor that should be taken into account during the specific situation of each case. The court established that the motion argued by the attorney general was timely, given the change in the circumstances.
4. The ruling given by the court had a significant impact on the abortion rights present in the state of Kentucky. The court had not directly addressed the constitutionality of HB 454, but instead placed implications over the abortion rights. The court had opened doors for further discussions and legal challenges to the abortion access in the state, when the court allowed the Attorney General of the state to intervene in its ruling. [6]
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT:
The judgement given in this case is very important for several reasons, such as:
1. The right to intervene in state law cases was given back to the state officials which includes the Attorney General by this ruling. This decision by the court had underscored the significance of state sovereignty and ability of states to defend their interests in the federal court.
2. The Supreme Court has not directly addressed the constitutionality of HB 454, but indirectly through its ruling has made implications for Kentucky’s abortion rights. As the court allowed the Attorney general to intervene in the cases, it also indirectly gave an approval for further battles over abortion access, which could possibly lead to increased restrictions on reproductive rights in the state of Kentucky.
3. This ruling of the Supreme Court has created a new precedent in regard to the timely intervention of motions and the possible factors that the court should be considering while evaluating the motions presented. The decision focused on the fact that the specific circumstances of a case should guide the decisions instead of rigid adherence to the procedural timelines.
4. The case also noted the shift in the political landscape where the changes in the leadership led to different approaches to abortion regulations in the state. It was highlighted in the ruling about how the political dynamics can easily influence legal battles over reproductive rights and the defence of state laws.
5. This decision of the Supreme Court has possibly opened doors for future legal challenges to abortion restrictions in the state of Kentucky itself and possibly in the other states as well. As this ruling allowed the state officials to intervene in cases similar to it, it is very much possible that the legal landscape that surrounds abortion rights may evolve further and which could possibly lead to restrictions or extra protections for reproductive health of women.
FINAL JUDGEMENT:
The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, reversed the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. This ruling mandates that the Sixth Circuit permit Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron to intervene in the case to defend House Bill 454 on behalf of the Commonwealth.
REFERENCES
[1] Cameron v EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C. (2022) 595 US ___; 142 S Ct 1002; 212 L Ed 2d 114 (US Supreme Court).
[2] EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C., et al. v Daniel Cameron, et al. American Civil Liberties Union https://www.aclu.org/cases/emw-womens-surgical-center-psc-et-al-v-daniel-cameron-et-al accessed 25th September 2025.
[3] Cornell Law School, ‘Cameron v EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C.’ (2022) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20-601 accessed 25th September 2025.
[4] Wiggin, ‘Supreme Court Update: United States v Tsarnaev, No 20-443; United States v Zubaydah, No 20-827; FBI v Fazaga, No 20-828; Wooden v United States, No 20-5279; Cameron v EMW Women’s Surgical Center’ (2022) https://www.wiggin.com/publication/supreme-court-update-united-states-v-tsarnaev-no-20-443-united-states-v-zubaydah-no-20-827-fbi-v-fazaga-no-20-828-wooden-v-united-states-no-20-5279-cameron-v-emw-womens/ accessed 25th September 2025.
[5] National Association of Attorneys General, ‘Supreme Court Report: Cameron v EMW Women’s Surgical Center, No 20-601’ (2022) https://www.naag.org/attorney-general-journal/supreme-court-report-cameron-v-emw-womens-surgical-center-20-601/ accessed 25th September 2025.
[6] Cameron v EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C. (2023) 2022-SC-0326-I https://law.justia.com/cases/kentucky/supreme-court/2023/2022-sc-0326-i.html accessed 25th September 2025.
