In Re New York City Policing, 27 F.4th 792

Background

Six consolidated actions challenged NYPD conduct during Summer 2020 demonstrations; plaintiffs include the New York Attorney General and private individuals/classes.
Four actions (Payne, People, Sow, Sierra) sought declaratory and/or injunctive relief to change NYPD policies; two (Yates, Wood) sought only damages.
The Police Benevolent Association (PBA), representing ~23,000 NYPD officers, moved to intervene as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a), asserting an independent interest in officer safety (and related collective-bargaining concerns) that could be impaired by changes to NYPD policies.
The district court denied intervention, reasoning the PBA’s interest was derivative of collective-bargaining rights and that the merits inquiry (whether policies were unconstitutional) did not implicate a protectable PBA interest at that stage.
The Second Circuit reversed as to the injunctive/declaratory cases, holding the PBA has a direct, substantial, legally protectable interest in officer safety and that existing parties may inadequately represent it; it affirmed denial as to the damages-only cases.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PBA has a cognizable interest under Rule 24(a)(2) in litigation over NYPD policies	PBA: officer-safety interest is direct, substantial, and legally protectable; merits outcomes could change policies that affect safety	City/NYPD: PBA’s interest is merely in defending potentially unconstitutional practices or is only a collective-bargaining interest	Held: PBA has a cognizable interest in officer safety for cases seeking injunctive/declaratory relief
Whether that interest may be impaired by the litigation’s disposition	PBA: declaratory/injunctive relief could alter rules/equipment and thus impair safety	City: merits stage only decides constitutionality; cannot be said to impair PBA’s interests now	Held: disposition may impair PBA’s interest; merits/merits-linked remedies could constrain policies affecting safety
Whether PBA’s asserted interest is independent of collective-bargaining rights	PBA: officer safety is an independently cognizable interest beyond bargaining rights	City: PBA’s interest is derivative of bargaining and thus not separately protectable now	Held: interest in officer safety is independent and not limited to collective-bargaining rights
Adequacy of representation by existing parties (City and individual officers)	PBA: City’s political incentives and prior statements show potential divergence; individual officers have divergent personal defenses	City: existing parties adequately represent PBA members’ interests	Held: PBA met minimal burden to show representation may be inadequate for injunctive/declaratory cases; intervention required. Denial affirmed for damages-only cases (permissive intervention not warranted).

Key Cases Cited

Oneida Indian Nation of Wisc. v. State of New York, 732 F.2d 261 (2d Cir. 1984) (intervention cannot be resolved by deciding ultimate merits; intervenor need not show entitlement in advance)
Bridgeport Guardians, Inc. v. Delmonte, 602 F.3d 469 (2d Cir. 2010) (employees can have an interest in employer practices justifying intervention)
Brennan v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ., 260 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2001) (Rule 24(a)(2) protects interests tied to the subject transaction even absent traditional property rights)
Floyd v. City of New York, 770 F.3d 1051 (2d Cir. 2014) (unions’ intervention denied where record lacked evidence of tangible harm to members; notice/timing considerations)
United States v. City of Los Angeles, 288 F.3d 391 (9th Cir. 2002) (police union had protectable interest in merits phase where complaint sought injunctive relief against member officers)
Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528 (1972) (applicant need show only that representation may be inadequate; burden is minimal)
R Best Produce, Inc. v. Shulman-Rabin Mktg. Corp., 467 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2006) (elements required for intervention as of right)