KOLOA RUM COMPANY v. NOEM, 1:25-cv-00554

Kōloa Rum Company filed suit against the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, challenging the constitutionality of the Jones Act.
Kōloa alleges the Jones Act, requiring U.S.-built, U.S.-owned, and U.S.-crewed vessels for transport between U.S. ports, discriminates against Hawaiian ports, increasing shipping costs for Hawaiian businesses.
Kōloa also asserts that the law violates its Fifth Amendment right to earn a living without due process of law.
The company seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the enforcement of the Jones Act as applied to interstate commerce between Hawai‘i and the mainland U.S.
American Maritime Partnership (AMP), Maritime Trades Department (MTD), and Matson Navigation Company, all with significant interests in the Jones Act, moved to intervene to defend the Act.
Both plaintiff and defendants opposed the intervention motions, citing concerns about delay and unnecessary expansion of the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether AMP, MTD, and Matson should be allowed to intervene	Intervention will cause delay, duplicated efforts, and irrelevant fact development	Intervention will cause delay and unwarranted expansion of the case	Intervention motions granted; intervenors must comply with existing deadlines.

Building and Const. Trades Dep’t, AFL-CIO v. Reich, 40 F.3d 1275 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (sets four requirements for intervention as of right)
EEOC v. Nat’l Child.’s Ctr., Inc., 146 F.3d 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (explains standards for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b))
Va. House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, 587 U.S. 658 (2019) (intervenor participation supporting defendants does not invoke independent subject matter jurisdiction)