Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Geithner
644 F.3d 836
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- FFRF sued the Secretary of the Treasury and IRS in their official capacities, challenging the federal parsonage exemption under 26 U.S.C. §107 and §265(a)(6) as unconstitutional, and California’s parallel exemption under CA Revenue and Tax Code §§17131.6, 17280(d)(2) as unconstitutional, seeking declarations and injunctions.
- Pastor Michael Rodgers moved to intervene as of right (Rule 24(a)(2)) and permissively (Rule 24(b)) on behalf of ministers; he sought to defend the exemptions.
- The district court denied Rodgers’s intervention motions; Rodgers appealed.
- The district court treated Rodgers as needing independent jurisdictional grounds for permissive intervention, which is inappropriate in federal-question cases where no new claims are raised.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo the denial of intervention as of right and for abuse of discretion the denial of permissive intervention, then vacated the permissive-intervention ruling and remanded to apply Rule 24(b) criteria.
- The court ultimately affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) | Rodgers argues he has a significantly protectable interest and is not adequately represented. | Federal defendants adequately represent Rodgers; interest aligns with defending constitutionality. | Rodgers not entitled to intervention as of right; adequate representation shown. |
| Presumption of adequate representation | Presumption applies because DOJ defends constitutionality; Rodgers can rebut only with compelling showing. | DOJ's objective to uphold constitutionality ensures adequacy; no compelling rebuttal shown. | Presumption of adequate representation applies; Rodgers failed to rebut. |
| Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) in federal-question case | Rodgers should be allowed permissive intervention to defend state and federal exemptions. | Permissive intervention requires independent jurisdictional grounds and common questions of law/fact; district erred. | Independent jurisdictional grounds not required in federal-question cases when no new claims; remand to apply Rule 24(b). |
| District court's Rule 24(b) analysis | N/A | N/A | Vacated; remanded to reassess under Rule 24(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- California ex rel. Lockyer v. United States, 450 F.3d 436 (9th Cir.2006) (presumption of adequate representation for intervenors)
- Sierra Club v. EPA, 995 F.2d 1478 (9th Cir.1993) (requires showing of interest and impairment in intervention analysis)
- Perry v. Bradbury, 587 F.3d 949 (9th Cir.2009) (four-factor test for intervention as of right; burden on movant)
- Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir.2003) (addresses adequacy of representation and ultimate objectives)
- Wilderness Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc; breadth of intervention presumption in favor of intervenors")