308 F.R.D. 39
D. Mass.2015Background
- SFFA alleges Harvard uses race in undergraduate admissions in violation of Title VI and the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Nine Future Applicants and five Harvard Students seek to intervene to defend Harvard’s race-conscious admissions; they support Harvard and aim to ensure race can be considered to the full extent allowed by law.
- Court considers intervention motions under Rule 24(a) (as of right) and 24(b) (permissive); SFFA and Harvard oppose full intervention but support amicus participation.
- Court finds no intervention as of right and denies permissive intervention; allows amicus curiae participation by the Students.
- Motion to Intervene denied; however, Students may participate as amici curiae with limited rights (briefs, declarations, and oral argument on dispositive motions).
- Case is in early discovery; scheduling order potentially adjustable if intervention were granted, but not here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Students have an intervention as of right | Future Applicants and Harvard Students have protectable interests | Harvard can adequately represent the Students' interests | Denied; no adequately protectable interest |
| Whether the Students have a basis for intervention due to inadequate representation | Harvard may not zealously advocate for Students' concerns | Adequate representation presumed; speculative inadequacy | Denied; presumption of adequacy stands |
| Whether the Students’ motion is timely | Motion filed more than five months after complaint | Early-stage litigation; timely given discovery posture | Timely |
| Whether permissive intervention is warranted under Rule 24(b) | Intervention would aid; discovery needs | Would cause delay, cost, and discovery burden; not warranted given adequate representation | Denied |
| Whether amicus curiae status should be granted | Amici can bring relevant perspectives and evidence | Amicus status sufficient; not as full party to avoid delay | Granted; amicus status allowed with specified limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- Ungar v. Arafat, 634 F.3d 46 (1st Cir.2011) (intervention framework; four-factor test for 24(a))
- Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H. v. Patch, 136 F.3d 197 (1st Cir.1998) (holistic, common-sense approach to Rule 24(a) factors)
- Daggett v. Comm’n on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices, 172 F.3d 104 (1st Cir.1999) (permissive vs. mandatory intervention; broad discretion)
- R & G Mortg. Corp. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 584 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.2009) (two types of intervention; timeliness considerations)
- Travelers Indem. Co. v. Dingwell, 884 F.2d 629 (1st Cir.1989) (interest must be direct, substantial, legally protectable)
- Massachusetts Food Ass’n v. Massachusetts Alcoholic Beverages Control Comm’n, 197 F.3d 560 (1st Cir.1999) (presumption of adequacy of representation; intervenor burden)
- Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) (educational benefits of diversity; expansive context cited by plaintiffs)
- Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 133 S. Ct. 2411 (2013) (recognition of diversity interests; related discussion of race in admissions)