902 F.3d 572
6th Cir.2018Background
- After the 2010 census, Michigan’s Republican-controlled government enacted new congressional and state legislative district maps; plaintiffs (Democratic voters and a voting-rights organization) sued in Dec. 2017 alleging partisan gerrymandering in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the First Amendment.
- Plaintiffs sued Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson and sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent elections under the challenged maps in 2020.
- Johnson moved to dismiss for lack of standing and to stay the case pending Supreme Court decisions in Gill v. Whitford and Benisek v. Lamone; while those motions were pending, eight Republican U.S. Representatives from Michigan moved to intervene (Rule 24(a) and 24(b)).
- The district court denied the Representatives’ intervention as of right and denied permissive intervention, reasoning intervention risked undue delay and prejudice given complex issues, need for expedition, and many citizens sharing the Representatives’ interests.
- The Representatives appealed the denial of permissive intervention to the Sixth Circuit; the panel reversed and remanded, holding the district court abused its discretion in denying permissive intervention.
- Judge Moore dissented, arguing the denial fell within the district court’s broad discretion because allowing eight additional defendants likely would have caused delay and prejudice to the plaintiffs’ need for an expedited resolution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Representatives could permissively intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) | Intervention would unduly delay and prejudice plaintiffs and complicate expedited resolution | The Representatives timely sought intervention and would raise common defenses (standing, justiciability, state interests, laches); their participation would not meaningfully delay the case if allowed early | Reversed: district court abused discretion in denying permissive intervention; Representatives entitled to intervene permissively |
| Whether the Representatives’ interests were sufficiently distinct to justify participation | Plaintiffs: Representatives’ interests are generalized and shared with citizens; representation by Secretary of State is adequate | Representatives: they have direct interests (constituent relationships, representation) distinct from Secretary’s administrative role | The panel held Representatives’ interests differ from Johnson’s and citizens’, weighing in favor of intervention under Rule 24(b) |
| Whether the district court provided adequate explanation to permit appellate review of its discretionary denial | Plaintiffs: brief order was sufficient given obvious risks to expedition | Representatives: district court’s order was cursory and failed to explain how cited factors would cause delay or prejudice | The panel found the district court’s explanation too cursory to allow meaningful review, contributing to abuse of discretion finding |
| Whether failure to attach a pleading (Rule 24(c)) justified denial | Plaintiffs: Rule 24(c) noncompliance supports denial | Representatives: courts take a lenient approach to Rule 24(c); no prejudice shown | Panel declined to affirm on Rule 24(c) ground, applying lenient approach and finding no prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbot v. Perez, 138 S. Ct. 2305 (2018) (§ 1253 jurisdiction covers orders having the practical effect of granting or denying an injunction)
- Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018) (Supreme Court remanded partisan gerrymandering claims after addressing standing concerns)
- Benisek v. Lamone, 138 S. Ct. 1942 (2018) (related Supreme Court redistricting decision pending at the time)
- Sales v. Marshall, 873 F.2d 115 (6th Cir. 1989) (orders completely denying intervention are immediately appealable)
- Mich. State AFL-CIO v. Miller, 103 F.3d 1240 (6th Cir. 1997) (Rule 24(b) timeliness/common-question requirement and need for district court explanation for discretionary decisions)
- United States v. Michigan, 424 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 2005) (standards for intervention of right and caution against speculative future events supporting intervention)
- Providence Baptist Church v. Hillandale Comm., Ltd., 425 F.3d 309 (6th Cir. 2005) (lenient approach to Rule 24(c) pleading attachment requirement)
- Vassalle v. Midland Funding LLC, 708 F.3d 747 (6th Cir. 2013) (denial of intervention is appropriate where intervention would unduly delay original parties’ adjudication)