1 INTRODUCTION The States of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia move to intervene to defend a fed-eral regulation that benefits the States and their residents, but which the Federal Defendants have declined to defend. Without intervention, there will be no party in this litigation to defend the challenged regulation—even though the regulation provides needed clarity to federal contractors and potential contractors in the Proposed Defendant-Intervenor States, protects their religious lib-erties, encourages participation in the pool of federal contractors, and brings economic benefits to the States. And though the case is currently stayed—because the Federal Defendants intend to rescind the regulation—there is a risk that the parties, now aligned in their disapproval of the challenged regulation, could enter a settlement agreement that would significantly prejudice the Pro-posed Defendant-Intervenors. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, the States deserve a seat at the table.1