Whether petitioners were entitled to intervene in defense of the Rule

QUESTIONS PRESENTED For more than a century, “[a]ny alien who... is likely at any time to become a public charge” has been “inadmissible” to this country. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4)(A). In 2019, after notice and comment, the Executive issued a final rule defining the term “public charge.” Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds, 84 Fed. Reg. 41,292 (Aug. 14, 2019) (formerly codified at 8 C.F.R. pts. 103, 212-14, 245, 248) (the Rule). The previous administration then spent the next two years defending the Rule, including in this Court. #.g., DHS v. New York, 1418. Ct. 1370 (2021) (New York IT). The new administration spent almost two months defending—or at least requesting additional time to consider—the Rule. On March 9, 2021, without prior notice, the Executive acquiesced in a single district court’s nationwide vacatur. See Pet. App. 5a-6a. The new administration relied on this vacatur to rescind the Rule without notice and comment. Jd. at 6a. Two days after the federal government’s acquiescence, a group of States sought to intervene to defend the Rule. Jd. at 6a-7a. This Court directed petitioners to seek first to intervene in the district court, which petitioners did. Both plaintiffs and the Government opposed petitioners’ attempts to intervene, which the lower courts rejected as untimely. The questions presented are: 1. Whether petitioners were entitled to intervene in defense of the Rule when they sought to do so within days of the federal government’s unprecedented litigation maneuvering. 2. Whether petitioners are entitled to either relief from the district court’s judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) or equitable vacatur of that judgment. (I)