Circuit split · civil procedure
Whether a party seeking to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a) must independently satisfy Article III standing.
2 federal appellate cases on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.
- Prete v. Bradbury438 F3D 949
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · February 22, 2006
“But a circuit split exists whether an intervenor-applicant must also independently satisfy Article III standing to intervene as of right.” — Acknowledges a circuit split
Empirical analysis of this case → - Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran333 F3D 228
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · July 1, 2003
“1999), identified a split in the circuits on the subject of intervenor standing.” — Acknowledges a circuit split
Empirical analysis of this case →
The provision at issue
28 U.S.C. § 2348 — Representation in proceeding; intervention
“The Attorney General is responsible for and has control of the interests of the Government in all court proceedings under this chapter. The agency, and any party in interest in the proceeding before the agency whose interests will be affected if an order of the agency is or is not enjoined, set aside, or suspended, may appear as parties thereto of their own motion and as of right, and be represented by counsel in any proceeding to review the order. Communities, associations, corporations, firms, and individuals, whose interests are affected by …”Read the full section →
The other side of the split
Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.
- Discussed · D.C. Cir.Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Norton322 F.3d 728
- Discussed · D.C. Cir.Bldg. & Constr. Trades Dep't v. Reich40 F.3d 1275
- Discussed · D.C. Cir.Rio Grande Pipeline Co. v. FERC178 F.3d 533
“FERC, 178 F.3d 533 , 538 (D.C.Cir.1999), identified a split in the circuits on the subject of intervenor standing.” — Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran, acknowledging the split
- Joined by · 7th Cir.Sokadgon Chippewa Cmty. v. Babbitt214 F.3d 941
- Discussed · 8th Cir.Planned Parenthood of Mid-Missouri & Eastern Kansas, Inc. v. Ehlmann137 F.3d 573
- Discussed · 6th Cir.Associated Builders & Contractors v. Perry16 F.3d 688
- Discussed · 2d Cir.U.S. Postal Serv. v. Brennan579 F.2d 188
- Discussed · 9th Cir.Yniguez v. Arizona939 F.2d 727
“Arizona, 939 F.2d 727 (9th Cir.1991), for the proposition that this court does not require independent Article III standing for in-tervenors, id.” — Prete v. Bradbury, acknowledging the split
What the split turns on
- Statutes:
- 28 U.S.C. § 2348
- Doctrines & tests:
- Article III is satisfied so long as one party has standing ·
- the standing inquiry is directed at those who invoke the court's jurisdiction
- Constitutional provisions:
- First Amendment
Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.