Kristin Perry v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, 630 F.3d 898

Movants include Imperial County, its Board of Supervisors, and a deputy county clerk moved to intervene to preserve appellate review if district court enjoined Prop. 8.
District court denied intervention as of right and permissive intervention; held Prop. 8 unconstitutional and issued injunction.
Plaintiffs sought to enjoin Prop. 8 and related state law; defendants included state officials; proponents of Prop. 8 intervened to defend constitutionality.
Movants argued their duties to oversee clerks and ensure laws are faithfully executed would be affected by any injunction.
Court held no significant protectable interest for movants; county clerks’ duties are statewide and controlled by state officials; deputy clerk had no standing as a deputy only.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2)	Imperial movants claim significant protectable interest in clerks' duties.	Interest resides in state, not local actors; no direct effect on movants.	No significant protectable interest; denial of intervention affirmed.
Deputy clerk Vargas's standing	Vargas could be bound by injunction and thus has standing.	Deputy clerk lacks authority to bind or represent Clerk; standing lacking.	Vargas lacks standing; deputy cannot stand in for Clerk.
Board/County's asserted local interest	Board/County have interest in supervising clerks and implementing Prop. 8.	Marriage law is statewide; local offices have no significant interest.	No significant protectable local interest; intervention not warranted.
Permissive intervention and standing to appeal	Movants may appeal the merits of Prop. 8 order.	Movants lack standing and significant interest; discretionary intervention not warranted.	District court did not abuse discretion; no standing to appeal merits.
Effect of Prop. 8 ruling on statewide review	Immediate statewide guidance warranted by ruling.	Statewide impact possible but not demonstrated by movants.	Proceedings affirm intervention denial; merits appeal dismissed for lack of standing.

Lockyer v. City & County of San Francisco, 33 Cal.4th 1055 (Cal. 2004) (statewide concern; local officials limited authority over marriage matters)
Donnelly v. Glickman, 159 F.3d 405 (9th Cir. 1998) (four-part test for intervention breadth)
Prete v. Bradbury, 438 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2006) (de novo review of intervention decisions; four requirements)
Perry v. Proposition 8 Official Proponents, 587 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2009) (standing to appeal and intervention considerations in Prop. 8 case)
Spangler v. Pasadena Bd. of Educ., 552 F.2d 1326 (9th Cir. 1977) (Spangler factors for permissive intervention)