Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, 834 F.3d 562

Texas law tightly regulates off-premises liquor sales: only package store permit holders may sell liquor retail for off-premises consumption, with ownership limits and prohibitions on public corporations and franchises.
Wal-Mart sued the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC), alleging the licensing regime is protectionist and benefits existing permit-holders in violation of constitutional provisions.
The Texas Package Stores Association (the Association), representing permit-holders, moved to intervene three months after Wal‑Mart answered; discovery had only just opened and no depositions or document productions had occurred.
The district court denied the Association’s motion to intervene; the Association appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
The Fifth Circuit evaluated intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)’s four‑part test: timeliness; interest relating to the subject; potential impairment of that interest; and inadequate representation by existing parties.
The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding the Association satisfied timeliness, has a legally protectable interest as the intended beneficiary of the regulatory scheme, its interest could be impaired, and the Commission might not adequately represent the Association’s narrower interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of intervention	Association waited too long and should be barred	Motion filed early in discovery; no prejudice	Timely: contextual standard; intervention before discovery progressed is timely
Whether intervenor has an interest relating to the subject	No separate protectable interest; interest is merely economic	Association directly benefits from and seeks to protect the regulatory scheme	Association has a legally protectable interest as intended beneficiary of the licensing regime
Whether disposition may impair intervenor’s ability to protect interest	Intervention unnecessary; any harm speculative	Wal‑Mart’s victory would dismantle the licensed market and harm members	Disposition could impair Association’s ability to protect its members’ market; impairment satisfied
Adequacy of representation by the Commission	The Commission will adequately defend the law; presumption of adequate representation applies	Commission’s objectives differ; it may not advance Association’s narrower, market‑protecting arguments	Representation may be inadequate because of differing objectives and tactical limits; minimal burden met

Texas v. United States, 805 F.3d 653 (5th Cir. 2015) (articulates four‑part intervention‑as‑of‑right test and presumption standards)
New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 732 F.2d 452 (5th Cir. 1984) (defines legally protectable interest for intervention)
Cooper v. Tex. Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n, 820 F.3d 730 (5th Cir. 2016) (held Association had standing to defend similar regulatory scheme)
Espy v. Sierra Club, 18 F.3d 1202 (5th Cir. 1994) (timeliness is contextual; liberal construction of Rule 24)
Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983 (5th Cir. 1996) (standards for inadequate representation and presumptions)
Flying J., Inc. v. Van Hollen, 578 F.3d 569 (7th Cir. 2009) (permitted association intervention to preserve special‑interest competition‑limiting statute)
N.Y. Public Interest Research Group v. Regents of Univ. of State of N.Y., 516 F.2d 350 (2d Cir. 1975) (association representing licensed professionals has cognizable interest)
Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of Am., 404 U.S. 528 (1972) (government’s broader public interest may differ from intervenor’s narrower interests)