Center for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt, 3:17-cv-00091

Plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity challenges the constitutionality of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) and contends Congress improperly disapproved Interior’s 2016 Refuges Rule for Alaska wildlife refuges.
Interior adopted the Refuges Rule in 2016, restricting certain predator-control methods (snares, nets, denning-season hunting, baiting bears, aircraft hunting) on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska; Congress passed and the President signed a joint resolution disapproving that rule under the CRA.
Defendant-Intervenors (Pacific Legal Foundation et al. (PLF), Safari Club International & NRA (Safari), and the State of Alaska) moved to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24.
Interior opposed intervention solely on adequacy-of-representation grounds, arguing the federal government will adequately represent the interests of the proposed intervenors.
The court considered timeliness, interest, potential impairment, and adequacy of representation, and found the proposed intervenors met Rule 24(a) requirements; it granted intervention as of right with coordination and briefing limits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PLF, Safari, and Alaska may intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2)	Intervention should be permissive or denied; PLF lacks an interest specific to the Refuges Rule	Interior: its representation of public lands interests is adequate; intervention unnecessary	Granted intervention as of right; court found requirements met and adequacy of representation rebutted
Adequacy of representation by the federal government	Plaintiff implicitly accepts intervention but seeks limits to avoid delay	Interior asserts presumption of adequacy when government represents a constituency	Court held presumption inapplicable here; intervenors adequately showed federal representation may be inadequate
Limits on intervenors’ participation	Seek joint briefing, coordination with Interior, and compliance with schedules to prevent delay	Intervenors opposed restrictions that would hamper full presentation	Court refused mandatory joint briefs, required coordination among intervenors and with Interior, and imposed page/time limits for briefs supporting dismissal
Timing and scope for intervenor briefing on pending motion to dismiss	Implicit concern about potential delay and duplicative briefing	Intervenors sought to participate in motion to dismiss	Court allowed supporting briefs limited to 7 pages each, due Aug 7, 2017; extended response/reply deadlines and barred intervenor replies absent court request

Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir.) (discusses government presumption of adequate representation)
Wilderness Soc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. en banc) (Rule 24(a)(2) construed broadly in favor of intervenors)
United States v. City of Los Angeles, 288 F.3d 391 (9th Cir.) (supports liberal construction of intervention rule)
Citizens for Balanced Use v. Montana Wilderness Ass'n, 647 F.3d 893 (9th Cir.) (burden to show inadequate representation is minimal)
Idaho Farm Bureau Fed'n v. Babbitt, 58 F.3d 1392 (9th Cir.) (public interest groups may intervene as of right when challenging measures they supported)