COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TRUMP, 2:17-cv-04540

Little Sisters of the Poor is a Catholic nonprofit opposing contraception; it was subject to the ACA contraceptive coverage mandate and the HHS "Accommodation" that required notice to insurers/TPAs.
Little Sisters sued over the Accommodation; the Supreme Court in Zubik remanded for the parties to seek an approach accommodating religious exercise while ensuring contraceptive coverage—without resolving RFRA liability.
In 2017 the President issued an Executive Order directing agencies to consider broader conscience-based exemptions; agencies then promulgated two Interim Final Rules (IFRs) that substantially expanded exemptions for employers with religious or moral objections.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania sued to enjoin the IFRs as unlawful; the federal government (defendants) defends the IFRs.
Little Sisters moved to intervene (as of right and permissively) to defend the IFRs and to obtain the ability to opt out without using the Accommodation Process.
The Court denied intervention: Little Sisters lacked a significantly protectable interest in this suit; the government adequately represents their interests; permissive intervention would be duplicative and risk delay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Little Sisters/Govt)	Held
Timeliness of intervention	Intervention would be untimely and disruptive	Motion was filed promptly after complaint and PI motion	Timely — court found movant timely (no delay or prejudice)
Whether intervener has a "significantly protectable" interest	Little Sisters lack a specific protectable interest in this suit	Little Sisters claim an interest in preserving relief they sought in Zubik and in the IFRs prompted by their case	Denied — court held Little Sisters do not have a sufficiently protectable interest in this litigation
Adequacy of existing representation	Government will represent public interests and the issues in this case	Little Sisters contend government may not protect their parochial religious interests	Denied — court found a presumption that the government adequately represents identical interests; Little Sisters failed to show inadequacy
Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)	Intervention would be unnecessary and risk delay	Little Sisters argue they bring important, direct stakes and defense of IFRs	Denied — permissive intervention would be duplicative, potentially prejudicial, and would complicate proceedings

Zubik v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 1557 (2016) (Supreme Court remanded for parties to seek accommodation while ensuring contraceptive coverage)
Harris v. Pernsley, 820 F.2d 592 (3d Cir. 1987) (standard for intervention as of right)
Kleissler v. U.S. Forest Serv., 157 F.3d 964 (3d Cir. 1998) (when narrow parochial interests can justify intervention despite governmental representation)
Wallach v. Eaton Corp., 837 F.3d 356 (3d Cir. 2016) (timeliness factors for intervention)
United States v. Territory of Virgin Islands, 748 F.3d 514 (3d Cir. 2014) (presumption that government adequately represents intervenor when charged by law to represent same interest)
Hoots v. Pennsylvania, 672 F.2d 1133 (3d Cir. 1982) (minimal burden to show inadequate representation)
Brody v. Spang, 957 F.2d 1108 (3d Cir. 1992) (inadequate representation shown when interests diverge sufficiently)
Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1645 (2017) (discussion of Article III standing for intervenors)
McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) (treatment of standing for defendant-intervenors in some contexts)