George Richardson v. Texas Secretary of Sta, 979 F.3d 1102

Movants (Federico Flores, Jr., Maria Guerrero, Vincente Guerrero) are plaintiffs in a separate, earlier Flores v. Hughs challenge to Texas signature‑verification procedures; Flores has not reached final judgment.
In Richardson v. Hughs, the district court granted partial summary judgment and injunction against the same procedures and denied the Flores plaintiffs’ motion for permissive intervention and to stay Richardson.
The Flores plaintiffs appealed the district court’s denial of intervention; that appeal was docketed under the same case number as the Secretary of State’s appeal of the summary‑judgment order.
The Flores plaintiffs then moved to intervene in the Secretary’s appeal, arguing they must participate to protect their interests in the injunctive remedy and to ensure the appeals are heard together.
The Fifth Circuit explained there is no general appellate rule for intervention and adopted the heightened Bursey standard—intervention on appeal permitted only in an "exceptional case for imperative reasons."
The court denied intervention (movants didn’t meet the high standard), declined to strike the motion, and granted leave to file an amicus brief sua sponte so movants can present their views.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether movants may intervene in an ongoing appeal	Movants need to intervene to protect their interests in the injunctive relief and to join appeals	No general appellate rule; intervention on appeal allowed only in exceptional cases and here movants fail that standard	Denied — movants did not meet the exceptional/imperative‑reasons standard
Proper standard for intervention on appeal	Movants suggested district‑court intervention principles should apply	Court held Bursey/McKenna standard controls: intervention on appeal only in exceptional cases to prevent gamesmanship	Adopted high Bursey standard; declined to apply ordinary Rule 24 analysis
Whether consolidation/concurrent panel review justifies intervention	Same‑panel review is necessary so movants’ appeal can be resolved before merits disposition	Appeals are docketed under the same case number; same merits panel will hear both appeals without intervention	Not an imperative reason; consolidation concern does not justify intervention
Whether movants can otherwise present their views	Movants need party status to argue the remedy is flawed despite agreeing on unconstitutionality	The proper vehicle for that position is amicus briefing, not intervention on appeal	Court denied intervention but granted leave to file amicus brief sua sponte

United States v. Bursey, 515 F.2d 1228 (5th Cir. 1975) (establishes that intervention on appeal is permissible only in exceptional cases for imperative reasons)
McKenna v. Pan Am. Petroleum Corp., 303 F.2d 778 (5th Cir. 1962) (source of the "exceptional case" articulation applied to appellate intervention)
United Auto. Workers v. Scofield, 382 U.S. 205 (1965) (noting district intervention policies may inform appellate practice, particularly in agency‑review contexts)
Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983 (5th Cir. 1996) (applying abuse‑of‑discretion review to district courts' permissive‑intervention decisions)
W. Gulf Mar. Ass’n v. ILA Deep Sea Local 24, 751 F.2d 721 (5th Cir. 1985) (illustrates vacatur/remand when a district court should have stayed proceedings for comity)
Hall v. Holder, 117 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 1997) (denying similar appellate intervention despite asserted voting‑rights interest)