THE PHILADELPHIA REGIONAL PORT AUTHORITY v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2:24-cv-01008
E.D. Pa.Nov 21, 2024Background
- This case concerns the challenge to and subsequent vacation of federal permits issued to Diamond State Port Corporation for the construction and operation of a new port in Edgemoor, Delaware, along the Delaware River.
- The Corps of Engineers granted permits under the Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act after a thorough review, contemplating significant economic benefits for Delaware.
- Plaintiffs, various port authorities in Philadelphia and New Jersey, sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, challenging the issuance of these permits.
- Diamond State and its private partner Enstructure followed the litigation from the outset but declined to intervene, only moving to do so after judgment was entered against the permits.
- The Court found the Corps' process flawed as to navigation and safety but not deficient regarding the consideration of economic benefits.
- Diamond State and Enstructure sought post-judgment intervention to preserve appellate rights, offering no explanation for their delay except resource conservation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Post-Judgment Intervention | Intervention untimely; non-parties waited too long | Delay justified to conserve resources; interest at risk | Denied as untimely and prejudicial |
| Adequacy of Representation by the Army Corps | Army Corps already represented all relevant interests | Corps could not fully represent economic interests | Corps' representation was adequate |
| Right to Appeal via Intervention | No automatic right; intervention rules apply | Need to intervene to preserve appeal rights | No authority for an automatic right |
| Economic Benefit Consideration by Corps | Corps properly weighed economic benefits | Need further opportunity to present economic evidence | Economic interests already considered |
Key Cases Cited
- NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 345 (1973) (motions to intervene post-judgment are disfavored unless extraordinary circumstances are shown)
- In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 695 F.2d 494 (3d Cir. 1982) (untimeliness is fatal to post-judgment intervention)
- Harris v. Pernsley, 820 F.2d 592 (3d Cir. 1987) (lays out standards for intervention as of right)
- Pennsylvania v. Rizzo, 530 F.2d 501 (3d Cir. 1976) (post-judgment intervention generally denied except in extraordinary circumstances)
- United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald, 432 U.S. 385 (1977) (timeliness of intervention assessed from knowledge of risk to rights)