North Dakota Ex Rel. Stenehjem v. United States, 787 F.3d 918

Background

Four North Dakota counties sued the United States under the Quiet Title Act seeking to quiet title to alleged section-line rights-of-way across lands in the Dakota Prairie Grasslands administered by the U.S. Forest Service; the State of North Dakota brought a parallel suit and the cases were consolidated.
Eight months after suit began, three environmental nonprofits (Badlands Conservation Alliance, Sierra Club, National Parks Conservation Association) moved to intervene as defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) or alternatively for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b).
The Groups submitted declarations from members describing aesthetic, recreational, and conservation interests and plans to use the Grasslands.
The district court denied intervention as of right, finding the Groups lacked Article III standing, failed to show a legally protectable interest, and that the United States adequately represented their interests; it also denied permissive intervention.
On appeal the Eighth Circuit reviewed denial of intervention as of right de novo and focused on whether the Groups met Rule 24(a) requirements and could overcome the presumption that the sovereign adequately represents citizen interests in a quiet title suit.
The court affirmed: it held the United States’ interest in defending title subsumed the Groups’ conservation interests, the Groups did not rebut the presumption of adequate representation, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing permissive intervention.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Conservation Groups may intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)	Groups: they have cognizable aesthetic/recreational/environmental interests that will be impaired and are not represented by the U.S.	Counties/State/US: Groups lack standing or a protectable interest, and the U.S. adequately represents any such interests	Denied — Groups failed to rebut presumption that the U.S. adequately represents their interests; intervention as of right denied
Whether the Groups have Article III standing to intervene	Groups: member declarations show injury-in-fact, traceability, and redressability	Opponents: no sufficient injury-in-fact and intervention would destroy case/controversy	Court did not reach standing requirement because Rule 24(a) denial was dispositive; district court also cited lack of standing but Eighth Circuit affirmed on Rule 24 grounds
Whether the presumption of adequate representation by the sovereign applies	Groups: their conservation interests are narrower/personal and conflict with U.S. land-use practices; prior disputes and settlements show divergence	U.S.: defending title aligns with Groups’ interests; quiet title action concerns ownership, not land-management choices	Presumption applies; Groups failed to make the strong showing required to rebut it
Whether permissive intervention should have been allowed under Rule 24(b)	Groups: alternatively seek permissive intervention to protect interests if not intervention as of right	State/Counties: permissive intervention would introduce delay and unrelated issues; district court should deny	Denied — district court did not abuse its discretion given risk of delay and ancillary issues; lack of standing and protectable interest also supported denial

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Union Elec. Co., 64 F.3d 1152 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review for denial of intervention as of right).
Mausolf v. Babbitt, 85 F.3d 1295 (8th Cir. 1996) (sovereign presumed to adequately represent citizens; Rule 24(a) framework).
Standard Heating & Air Conditioning Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 137 F.3d 567 (8th Cir. 1998) (consideration of intervention where existing parties maintain case/controversy).
Chiglo v. City of Preston, 104 F.3d 185 (8th Cir. 1997) (government represents interests coinciding with public interest; rebuttal requires showing misfeasance/nonfeasance).
Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. Minnesota, 989 F.2d 994 (8th Cir. 1993) (limits on presumption where government might sacrifice narrower intervenor interests).
Dimond v. District of Columbia, 792 F.2d 179 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (parens patriae discussion regarding when government may not represent narrower interests).
Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. N. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 378 F.3d 774 (8th Cir. 2004) (requiring a strong showing to rebut presumption of adequate representation).
S.D. ex rel Barnett v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 317 F.3d 783 (8th Cir. 2003) (permissive intervention is discretionary and focuses on delay/prejudice).