Jackson v. Abercrombie
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81056
D. Haw.2012Background
- Plaintiffs challenge Hawaii HRS § 572-1 and the marriage amendment as violating federal Equal Protection and Due Process.
- HFF seeks to intervene as a defendant to defend Hawaii’s marriage laws.
- Court summarized a long legislative and constitutional history: 1994 amendment to § 572-1, 1997–1998 marriage amendment, 1999 Hawaii Supreme Court mootness, and 2011 civil unions law § 572B.
- Plaintiffs allege that denying same-sex marriage while allowing civil unions lacks rational basis and discriminates based on sex.
- HFF asserts it actively supported Hawaii’s marriage laws and spent substantial resources to promote the amendment.
- Court held hearing and addressed whether intervention as of right or permissive intervention is appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HFF may intervene as of right | HFF has significant protectable interest from supporting the laws | Fuddy represents HFF’s interest; timeliness contested only by implication | HFF may intervene as of right |
| Whether HFF has a significant protectable interest | HFF's 501(c)(3) status bars intervention; it did not actively support amendment | HFF actively supported the marriage laws and contributed to campaign | HFF has a significant protectable interest through active support of the laws |
| Whether HFF’s interest would be impaired without intervention | Without HFF, the laws could be struck down against public interest | Not specifically argued; defense by Fuddy may cover interest | Disposition could impair HFF’s interests; intervention appropriate |
| Whether existing representation is adequate | Director Fuddy will adequately represent similar interests | Fuddy and HFF have identical ultimate objective; presumption of adequacy applies | HFF may be inadequately represented due to differing positions of defendants; presumption rebutted |
| Whether permissive intervention should be granted | Intervention would delay and complicate case | If as-of-right exists, permissive intervention unnecessary | Court exercises discretion to grant permissive intervention as alternative (but reiterates right to intervene) |
Key Cases Cited
- Prete v. Bradbury, 438 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2006) (four-part test for intervention as of right)
- Citizens for Balanced Use v. Montana Wilderness Ass’n, 647 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2011) (broad interpretation favoring intervention; practical considerations)
- Sagebrush Rebellion, Inc. v. Watt, 713 F.2d 525 (9th Cir. 1983) (public-interest group may intervene when it supported challenged action)
- Wash. State Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Spellman, 684 F.2d 627 (9th Cir. 1982) (public-intervenor rights in regulatory actions)
- Tucson Women’s Center v. Arizona Medical Board, 2009 WL 4438933 (D. Ariz. 2009) (district court consideration of intervenor involvement in contested matters)
- Glickman v. Northwest Forest Resource Council, 82 F.3d 825 (9th Cir. 1996) (public-interest groups may intervene even when not directly involved in legislation if interests align)
- Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2003) (rebuttal of adequacy of government representation in intervention)