Citizens for Balanced Use v. Montana Wilderness Ass'n
647 F.3d 893
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Applicants intervened in an action challenging the Forest Service's Interim Order restricting motorized and mechanized use in the Gallatin National Forest Study Area.
- The Study Area is governed by the Montana Wilderness Study Act of 1977, which directs maintainance of wilderness character and potential for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System.
- The Forest Service previously approved the Travel Management Plan in 2006, which conservation groups challenged as violating the MWSA and NEPA; CBU also sued alleging the Plan was overly restrictive.
- In November 2009 the Forest Service issued an Interim Order limiting use; CBU challenged this order in April 2010.
- Applicants moved to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) or permissively under Rule 24(b); the district court denied the motion.
- The Ninth Circuit held Applicants satisfied all four Rule 24(a)(2) requirements and reversed, remanding with instructions to permit intervention and ensure equal footing with original parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2 is proper | Applicants meet four elements for intervention as of right | CBU argues the Forest Service adequately represents interests | Yes, intervention as of right warranted |
| Whether the Forest Service adequately represents Applicants | Forest Service may inadequately protect wilderness interests given its litigation posture | Forest Service represents public interests and may defend Interim Order | Yes, representation may be inadequate; intervention proper |
| Timeliness of Applicants' motion | Motion filed early in proceedings, before substantial prejudice | Not contested | Timely intervention supported |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying permissive intervention | Intervention as of right established, rendering permissive analysis unnecessary | Unclear; district court denied both forms | Not reached; reversal on intervention as of right suffices |
Key Cases Cited
- County of Fresno v. Andrus, 622 F.2d 436 (9th Cir. 1980) (inadequacy of representation when agency acted reluctantly after suit; intervention appropriate)
- Idaho Farm Bureau Federation v. Babbitt, 58 F.3d 1392 (9th Cir. 1995) (agency unlikely to vigorously pursue intervenor's objectives; inadequacy shown)
- Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of America, 404 U.S. 528 (S. Ct. 1972) (establishes that representation may be deemed inadequate if conditions favoring intervention exist)
- Prete v. Bradbury, 438 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2006) (four-part test for intervention as of right; broad interpretation in applicant's favor)
- Berg v. United States, 268 F.3d 825 (9th Cir. 2001) (de novo review of intervention rulings; timeliness review narrow)
- United States v. City of L.A., 288 F.3d 391 (9th Cir. 2002) (intervention standards and scope when right to intervene disputed)
- Lockyer ex rel. Calif. v. United States, 450 F.3d 445 (9th Cir. 2006) (relates to equal footing and procedural posture after intervention)