United States v. State of Mich., 68 F.4th 1021

Decades-long litigation over Great Lakes fisheries produced a 1985 consent decree and a twenty-year 2000 consent decree; when the 2000 term expired the district court extended it pending adjudication of objections to a successor decree.
Parties negotiating a successor decree: United States, State of Michigan, and five federally recognized tribes (seven sovereigns total); negotiations began ~three years before the Coalition moved to intervene.
The Coalition to Protect Michigan Resources had been granted amicus status in 2019, participated in negotiations (including caucusing with Michigan), and was permitted to file objections to any proposed decree.
As the parties neared agreement, the Coalition moved to intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) and (b), asserting Michigan no longer would adequately protect conservation interests and alleging harm from tribal use of non-selective gill nets.
The district court denied intervention as untimely and, in the exercise of its discretion, denied permissive intervention while allowing the Coalition to remain an amicus and to file objections; Coalition appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Coalition)	Defendant's Argument (State/United States/Tribes)	Held
Timeliness under Rule 24(a)(2)	Motion timely because Michigan recently abandoned conservation positions and new affidavits show changed circumstances	Motion untimely: Coalition waited ~3 years and sought to intervene near the parties’ "finish line"	Denied: district court did not abuse discretion in finding the motion untimely
Adequacy of representation	Michigan will not adequately represent Coalition’s conservation and biodiversity interests	Presumption that Michigan shares Coalition’s ultimate objective to conserve resources; Coalition failed to preserve admissible evidence showing abandonment	Denied: Coalition failed to show inadequate representation; court presumed adequacy absent properly preserved contrary evidence
Prejudice from late intervention	Intervention would not necessitate delay and is necessary to protect Coalition’s rights	Late intervention would destabilize negotiated compromises and cause delay/prejudice	Denied: prejudice to original parties weighed against intervention
Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)	Should be allowed because Coalition raises common questions of law/fact and needs party status for appeals	Not timely; late intervention not appropriate for permissive joinder	Denied: permissive intervention also denied for untimeliness and as a matter of discretion

Blount-Hill v. Zelman, 636 F.3d 278 (6th Cir. 2011) (elements for intervention as of right)
Stupak-Thrall v. Glickman, 226 F.3d 467 (6th Cir. 2000) (timeliness reviewed for abuse of discretion; district court familiarity with case finish line)
Jansen v. City of Cincinnati, 904 F.2d 336 (6th Cir. 1990) (factors to consider in timeliness inquiry)
United States v. Heavrin, 330 F.3d 723 (6th Cir. 2003) (deference to district court timeliness determinations)
United States v. Michigan, 424 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 2005) (failure to satisfy any Rule 24(a)(2) element requires denial)
In re Auto. Parts Antitrust Litig., End-Payor Actions, 33 F.4th 894 (6th Cir. 2022) (approaches to assessing purpose in timeliness analysis)
Stotts v. Memphis Fire Dep’t, 679 F.2d 579 (6th Cir. 1982) ("wait-and-see" strategies disfavored)
City of Detroit v. United States, 712 F.3d 925 (6th Cir. 2013) (limited intervention for appeal may be appropriate in some circumstances)