State of Texas v. USA
805 F.3d 653
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Texas and 25 other States sued the United States seeking to enjoin DAPA, a DHS policy memorandum that would permit certain long‑term undocumented parents of U.S. citizens/LPRs to receive deferred action and work authorization.
- Three anonymous noncitizen mothers (the "Jane Does") living in Texas with U.S.‑citizen children moved to intervene as defendants, asserting they meet DAPA eligibility criteria and would likely receive deferred action.
- The district court denied intervention, finding the United States would adequately represent the Jane Does and that adding parties would cause delay; the court then entered a preliminary injunction against DAPA.
- Jane Does appealed only the denial of intervention by right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2); the Fifth Circuit reviews that denial de novo.
- The Fifth Circuit accepted the Jane Does’ factual allegations as true for the intervention motion and evaluated the four Rule 24(a)(2) elements, focusing on the disputed “interest” and “inadequate representation” prongs.
- The Fifth Circuit concluded the Jane Does had concrete, legally protectable interests (deferred action, employment opportunities, parental custody/childrearing) and demonstrated divergence from the Government’s interests, so intervention by right was required. The denial was reversed and the case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jane Does possess an "interest" under Rule 24(a)(2) | Jane Does: concrete, personalized, legally protectable stakes — eligibility for deferred action, work authorization, and parental custody interests | States/Gov: Interests are not legally protectable because deferred action is discretionary and revocable; interest is generalized | Held: Sufficient — interests are concrete, personal, and protected (Due Process) even if discretionary or revocable |
| Whether Jane Does are inadequately represented by the Government (Rule 24(a)(2) fourth prong) | Jane Does: Government’s institutional objectives diverge (broad executive interests, relations with states) and Government has taken positions adverse to DAPA beneficiaries (e.g., driver’s license stance); also alleged Government misconduct impaired representation | Gov/States: Government will adequately defend DAPA; any differences are abstract; added parties would delay proceedings | Held: Jane Does overcame presumption of adequate representation by showing adversity of interest and specific divergent positions; representation may be inadequate |
| Applicability of presumptions of adequate representation when a government defendant is on the same side | Jane Does: Even with shared ultimate objective, presumptions can be rebutted by demonstrating divergent interests or arguments germane to litigation | Gov: As the defending government, it presumptively represents beneficiary interests adequately | Held: Presumption can be rebutted; Jane Does rebutted it here by identifying concrete divergences and adverse positions |
| Remedy for denial of intervention | Jane Does: District court erred; request for intervention by right should have been granted | States/Gov: Denial appropriate due to adequate representation and prejudice/delay | Held: Reversed — Jane Does entitled to intervene by right; matter remanded to district court |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (sets forth standards for intervention and presumption of adequate representation)
- New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 732 F.2d 452 (5th Cir. 1984) (en banc) (articulates four‑part Rule 24(a)(2) test and "direct, substantial" interest requirement)
- Brumfield v. Dodd, 749 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2014) (parents had sufficient interest to intervene to protect educational/voucher benefits)
- Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of Am., 404 U.S. 528 (1972) (applicant need only show representation "may be" inadequate; minimal burden)
- Diaz v. S. Drilling Corp., 427 F.2d 1118 (5th Cir. 1970) (property interests as paradigmatic sufficient interests for intervention)
- Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993) (aliens entitled to Fifth Amendment due process in deportation proceedings)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have fundamental right to make decisions concerning care and control of their children)