Melissa Buck v. Robert Gordon, 959 F.3d 219

Michigan’s MDHHS contracts with private child-placing agencies (CPAs), including faith-based St. Vincent Catholic Charities, to perform home evaluations and recommend foster/adoptive licenses.
In 2015 Michigan enacted a statute protecting faith-based CPAs from being required to provide services that conflict with sincerely held religious beliefs.
Kristy and Dana Dumont, a same-sex couple, sued MDHHS alleging the State permitted discrimination by faith-based CPAs; Michigan later settled, agreeing to treat sexual-orientation discrimination by faith-based CPAs as a violation of contract terms.
St. Vincent (not party to that settlement) sued the State challenging the State’s changed enforcement position; the Dumonts moved to intervene in St. Vincent’s suit but the district court denied both intervention as of right and permissive intervention (allowing only amicus participation).
The district court granted St. Vincent a preliminary injunction and later stayed the case pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Fulton; the Dumonts appealed the denial of intervention.
The Sixth Circuit held the Dumonts presented a common legal question and that the district court abused its discretion in denying permissive intervention, reversed that denial, and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dumonts presented a common question of law/fact for intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)	Dumonts: Their constitutional defenses (Establishment Clause, Equal Protection) directly oppose St. Vincent’s asserted rights and present the same legal question	St. Vincent: Dumonts merely duplicate the State’s positions and raise no unique common claim	Held: Yes. Dumonts raised common constitutional questions (including Establishment Clause and Equal Protection defenses) suitable for intervention
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(3)	Dumonts: Motion was timely; intervention promotes judicial economy; district court failed to weigh undue delay/prejudice and other Rule 24(b) factors	St. Vincent: Interests are aligned with the State; amicus participation suffices; intervention would risk prejudice/discovery burdens	Held: Court abused its discretion by providing only cursory reasoning, failing to address Rule 24(b)(3) factors (undue delay/prejudice), and misemphasizing identity-of-interest; reversal and remand for further proceedings granting permissive intervention possibilities

League of Women Voters of Mich. v. Johnson, 902 F.3d 572 (6th Cir. 2018) (Rule 24(b) discretion and requirement to explain decisions for meaningful appellate review)
Mich. State AFL-CIO v. Miller, 103 F.3d 1240 (6th Cir. 1997) (timeliness and balancing undue delay/prejudice under Rule 24(b))
Tahfs v. Proctor, 316 F.3d 584 (6th Cir. 2003) (abuse-of-discretion standard and reversal guidance)
United States v. City of Detroit, 712 F.3d 925 (6th Cir. 2013) (district court’s broad discretion to set scope of intervention)
Dumont v. Lyon, 341 F. Supp. 3d 706 (E.D. Mich. 2018) (prior related decision addressing claims and permissive participation)
Fidel v. Farley, 534 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 2008) (intervention affects right to seek appellate review)
Coal. to Defend Affirmative Action v. Granholm, 501 F.3d 775 (6th Cir. 2007) (identity-of-interest is one relevant criterion under Rule 24(b))