American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota v. Tarek Ibn Ziyad Academy
643 F.3d 1088
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- ACLU sued Tarek Ibn Ziyad Academy (TIZA) and others for Establishment Clause violations.
- Parents of TIZA students moved to intervene under Rule 24, proffered to defend their children’s rights; district court denied as untimely and due to lack of standing.
- District court held parents lacked Article III standing and, alternatively, that intervention was untimely.
- Court acknowledges parents have standing to intervene but affirms denial on timeliness grounds.
- The district court considered factors: progression of litigation, parents’ knowledge, delay justification, and potential prejudice; found fourteen-month delay prejudicial.
- This court affirms the district court’s denial of the parents’ motion to intervene; a panel member dissents from part III.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the parents have Article III standing to intervene? | Parents allege injury in fact to their children’s rights. | Standing would be speculative or anticipatory. | Yes, parents have standing to intervene. |
| Was the intervention timely? | Delay was reasonable given shared interests. | Delay was excessive and prejudicial given ongoing proceedings. | District court did not abuse discretion; motion untimely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Medtronic, Inc., 628 F.3d 451 (8th Cir.2010) (standing before merits; intervention analysis follows standing)
- United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 569 F.3d 829 (8th Cir.2009) (standing elements; traceability and redressability)
- Mausolf v. Babbitt, 85 F.3d 1295 (8th Cir.1996) (standing elements required; injury in fact must be alleged)
- ASARCO, Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605 (1989) (standing/merits interplay; injury need not be meritorious on the merits to have standing)
- Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980) (free exercise claims require individualized inquiry; timing impacts intervention)
- South Dakota ex rel. Ubbelohde v. Ubbelohde, 330 F.3d 1014 (8th Cir.2003) (imminence/traceability in intervention context; injuries to intervenors may flow from defendant’s action if plaintiff prevails)
- Verizon Communications, Inc. v. Inverizon Int’l, Inc., 295 F.3d 870 (8th Cir.2002) (abuse of discretion standard for timeliness; weighs factors Court should consider)
- Ritchie v. United States, 620 F.3d 824 (8th Cir.2010) (timeliness factors in intervention decision)