David W. Sunday, Jr., Attorney General of Pennsylvania, et al. v. Transource Pennsylvania, LLC, et al.

For years, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, while represented by the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, defended a state statute against a federal preemption claim. That state statute requires a utility company to show that the public needs an electrical transmission line before the utility may construct that line within Pennsylvania’s borders. The Third Circuit held that the statute is preempted, disrupting the delicate state-federal balance of power over land use. After that loss, the Public Utility Commission unexpectedly refused to continue its defense of this state statute. As authorized by state law, Pennsylvania’s Attorney General and Consumer Advocate promptly moved to intervene so that they could seek further appellate review. Those state officials sought to vindicate several important state sovereign interests, including the continued enforceability of a democratically-enacted statute. The Third Circuit denied these state officials’ request to intervene without any explanation. The question presented is: Was the Third Circuit’s denial of intervention contrary to this Court’s decisions in Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, 595 U.S. 267 (2022), and Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 597 U.S. 179 (2022)?