Mid-America Milling Company v. U.S. Department of Transportation
3:23-cv-00072
| E.D. Ky. | May 21, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Mid-America Milling, LLC and Bagshaw Trucking Inc., regular bidders on U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) contracts, challenged the federal Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program, arguing it violated the Equal Protection Clause.
- The DBE Program mandates a percentage of federal highway funds go to small businesses owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, with rebuttable presumptions for certain groups.
- The court previously enjoined DOT from enforcing race- and gender-based presumptions in contracts on which the plaintiffs bid.
- After executive orders from President Trump directed the elimination of federal DEI and DBE-like programs, several minority- and women-owned business organizations and companies (Intervenor DBEs) moved to intervene to defend the DBE Program.
- Plaintiffs and other potential claimants opposed the intervention, while the federal Defendants took no position; the court needed to decide whether the Intervenor DBEs met the requirements to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under 28 U.S.C. § 516 | Only DOJ may conduct litigation on behalf of U.S.; intervenors lack standing | Intervenors not acting on behalf of U.S.; just own interests | Section 516 inapplicable; intervenors seek to represent own interests |
| Article III Standing | Intervenors must independently demonstrate Article III standing | Not required for intervening defendants | Intervenors need not show standing as they support the defendant |
| Timeliness of Motion to Intervene | Intervention untimely after injunction and discovery deadlines passed | Promptly intervened when interests threatened | Motion timely; case in early stages, no undue prejudice |
| Intervention as of Right (Rule 24) | No substantial legal interest; interests are abstract policy concerns | Direct business interests at stake; substantial legal interest | Intervenors have substantial interest and are inadequately represented |
Key Cases Cited
- Sherbrooke Turf, Inc. v. Minn. DOT, 345 F.3d 964 (8th Cir. 2003) (describes the federal DBE program and legal standards for presumed disadvantage)
- United States v. Tennessee, 260 F.3d 587 (6th Cir. 2001) (sets test for intervention as of right under Rule 24)
- Grubbs v. Norris, 870 F.2d 343 (6th Cir. 1989) (substantial legal interest standard for intervention)
- Purnell v. City of Akron, 925 F.2d 941 (6th Cir. 1991) (impairment-of-interest requirement for intervention)
- Grutter v. Bollinger, 188 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 1999) (standard for inadequate representation in intervention)