Fordham Law Review Volume 85 Issue 5 Article 23 2017 It’s Time for an Intervention!: Resolving the Conflict Between Rule 24(a)(2) and Article III Standing Gregory R. Manring Fordham University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Civil Law Commons, Civil Procedure Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, and the Judges Commons Recommended Citation Gregory R. Manring, It’s Time for an Intervention!: Resolving the Conflict Between Rule 24(a)(2) and Article III Standing, 85 Fordham L. Rev. 2525 (2017). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol85/iss5/23 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IT’S TIME FOR AN INTERVENTION!: RESOLVING THE CONFLICT BETWEEN RULE 24(a)(2) AND ARTICLE III STANDING Gregory R. Manring* Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides an important apparatus by which a nonparty to a dispute may enter by her own initiative to protect an unrepresented interest. Despite the utility and function in balancing the interests of private parties and the effects that their disputes have on third parties, especially in the public law realm, intervention’s requirements are unclear. Whether intervenors of right must independently satisfy Article III standing requirements or whether Article III is satisfied by the existence of a case or controversy between the original parties remains unresolved. The courts of appeals are currently split on the issue—seven do not require Rule 24(a)(2) intervenors to show standing and three do. These categorical approaches, however, are both functionally and legally inadequate. This Note argues that federal courts should employ an approach that is more related to maintaining the benefits of Rule 24 without running afoul of Article III—a task the yes-or-no approach is ill equipped to handle. Ultimately, an approach that is based on employing a standing analysis only where the Case or Controversy Clause is implicated anew allows the greatest access to the intervention device without running the risk of entertaining nonjusticiable disputes. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 2527 I. THE CASE OR CONTROVERSY CLAUSE AND INTERVENTION OF RIGHT ........................................................................................... 2527 A. Rule 24(a)(2) Intervention of Right ........................................ 2528 1. What Is Intervention? ....................................................... 2529 2. Intervention of Right Requirements ................................. 2530 3. Rights of Intervening Parties ........................................... 2532 * J.D. Candidate, 2018, Fordham University School of Law; B.A., 2013, New York University. I would like to thank Professor Marc Arkin for her invaluable wisdom and advice and my peers on the Fordham Law Review for their support and hard work in making this possible. I would also like to thank my friends and family for their encouragement and patience. 2525 2526 FORDHAM LAW REVIEW [Vol. 85 B. The Case or Controversy Clause and the Standing Requirement .......................................................................... 2532 1. The Purpose of the Case or Controversy Clause and the Standing Requirement ..................................................... 2533 a. Standing as a Jurisdictional Baseline ........................ 2534 b. Standing as a Facilitator of the Judicial Process ...... 2534 2. Jurisdictional Standing Requirements .............................. 2535 a. Injury .......................................................................... 2535 b. Causation and Redressability .................................... 2536 3. Who Needs Standing? ...................................................... 2536 C. Different Types of Intervenors ................................................ 2537 1. Plaintiffs v. Defendants .................................................... 2537 2. Public v. Private Law Litigation ...................................... 2538 II. STANDING ORDERS: THE LOWER COURTS DIVIDE ........................... 2539 A. Diamond v. Charles ................................................................ 2539 B. McConnell v. FEC .................................................................. 2540 C. The Circuit Courts’ Categorical Approach ............................ 2540 1. The Seventh Circuit Approach ......................................... 2541 2. The Second Circuit Approach .......................................... 2541 III. IF YOU DON’T STAND FOR SOMETHING, YOU’LL FALL FOR ANYTHING .................................................................................... 2542 A. Neither the Intervention nor the Standing Inquiry Can Subsume the Other ................................................................ 2542 B. The Functional Problems with a Categorical Approach ........ 2543 1. Why Stand When You Can Sit? ....................................... 2543 a. Requiring Standing for Rule 24(a)(2) Intervention Is Underinclusive .......................................................... 2543 b. Requiring Standing for Rule 24(a)(2) Intervenors Unnecessarily Limits the Function of Rule 24 .......... 2544 2. Not Requiring Standing Is Overinclusive ........................ 2545 C. A Standing Analysis Is Only Necessary Where the Court Is Faced with a Distinct Case or Controversy .......................... 2545 1. Intervention Itself Does Not Require an Independent Jurisdictional Analysis .................................................... 2545 2. Intervenors Must Demonstrate Standing When They Seek to Continue a Suit Without the Original Party’s Participation .................................................................... 2546 3. Discrete Claims or Requests for Separate Relief May Trigger a Standing Analysis ............................................ 2546 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 2547 2017] RULE 24(a)(2) AND ARTICLE III STANDING 2527 INTRODUCTION Article III of the U.S. Constitution created and vested the power to resolve certain cases and controversies in the federal judiciary.1 A federal court’s power to entertain a dispute turns on whether a party has standing to assert that claim—that is, whether a party alleges that she has suffered an actual, redressable injury that is traceable to the alleged conduct.2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) (“the Rule”) defines the circumstances under which a nonparty to a dispute has the right to enter the dispute to protect an interest in the outcome.3 An affected party has the right to intervene when she alleges impairment of an interest and a lack of existing adequate representation for that interest.4 However, whether such intervention constitutes a new case or controversy—subject to a separate standing analysis—remains unresolved.5 This Note seeks to balance constitutional and statutory requirements with judicial efficiency concerns and public interest and policy considerations that influence when a separate standing analysis is appropriate for Rule 24(a)(2) motions.6 Accordingly, Part I of this Note examines the requirements and purpose of Rule 24(a)(2) intervention and the Case or Controversy Clause. It also discusses different types of intervenors and their relationship with the intervention of right and Article III standing requirements. Part II discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s lack of guidance on the subject and the opposing views of the federal circuits that have filled this void. Finally, Part III proposes a resolution to this problem. A categorical approach to whether Article III standing is required for Rule 24(a)(2) intervention fails to serve the purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Case or Controversy Clause. Because intervention itself does not trigger the Case or Controversy Clause’s jurisdictional constraints, federal courts should adopt a more nuanced inquiry to determine whether a standing analysis is truly necessary. I. THE CASE OR CONTROVERSY CLAUSE AND INTERVENTION OF RIGHT The discordant relationship between the Case or Controversy Clause and Rule 24 intervention of right is long standing and unsettled.7 Each doctrine 1. See U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. 2. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180–81 (2000); Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). 3. See FED. R. CIV. P. 24(a)(2); see also infra Part I.A. 4. FED. R. CIV. P. 24(a)(2); see also infra Part I.A.2. 5. See, e.g., Laroe Estates, Inc. v. Town of Chester, 828 F.3d 60, 64 (2d Cir. 2016) (noting that “a circuit split on this issue has persisted for some time”), cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 810 (2017); see also infra Part II. 6. See infra Parts II–III. 7. The Rule 24 amendment and expansion in 1966 spawned this circuit split. See infra note 21. Federal courts have not uniformly resolved the issue of intervenor standing over the subsequent five decades. See infra Part II. 2528 FORDHAM LAW REVIEW [Vol. 85 alone is the subject of extensive scholarly and judicial interpretation.8 At the intersection of these two doctrines lies a grey