Western Watersheds Project v. Deb Haaland, 22 F.4th 828

Environmental groups sued the BLM and Secretary of the Interior challenging 2017–2018 instruction memoranda and over 2,200 oil-and-gas lease sales (alleging NEPA, FLPMA, and APA violations) and sought vacatur of lease sales.
BLM’s policy shift after 2016 led to large lease sales; Chesapeake purchased seven Wyoming leases (paid >$8.4M) and began development.
The district court in Phase One held IM 2018-034 unlawful and vacated Phase One lease sales (including two of Chesapeake’s leases), then stayed vacatur pending appeal but limited development (Footnote Six Protocol).
Chesapeake moved to intervene shortly after the stay (within the appeal period), asserting significant financial and property interests and that existing intervenor WEA would not adequately represent its specific legal defenses.
The district court denied intervention as untimely and because WEA adequately represented Chesapeake; the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding Chesapeake entitled to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of intervention	Chesapeake filed too late; case and Phase One were far advanced so intervention would prejudice plaintiffs	Chesapeake filed within appellate period and only recently learned its leases were implicated; delay excused	Motion to intervene was timely for Phase One appeal and for participation in future phases given discovery date; district court abused discretion
Adequacy of WEA’s representation	WEA represents industry generally and can protect Chesapeake’s interests	WEA’s objectives align with Chesapeake; presumption of adequacy	Chesapeake rebutted presumption by identifying colorable arguments WEA did not raise and showing pecuniary/contractual interests WEA may neglect; representation may be inadequate
Protectable interest and impairment	(Plaintiffs did not dispute)	Chesapeake argued leases and millions invested give protectable interest that vacatur would impair	Chesapeake has a significantly protectable interest likely to be impaired by disposition — requirement satisfied
Necessity under Rule 19 (as raised by district court)	Plaintiffs contended Chesapeake not required because WEA suffices	Chesapeake emphasized direct contract/due-process interests as a leaseholder	Ninth Circuit did not resolve Rule 19 after finding Rule 24(a) satisfied; noted contract-holder principles support intervention as of right

Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland, 960 F.3d 603 (9th Cir. 2020) (sets Rule 24(a) elements)
Citizens for Balanced Use v. Mont. Wilderness Ass'n, 647 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2011) (broadly construing intervention standards; minimal burden to show inadequacy)
Smith v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist., 830 F.3d 843 (9th Cir. 2016) (timeliness analyzed under totality: stage, prejudice, reason/length of delay)
United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2004) (delay can strongly weigh against intervention)
United States ex rel. McGough v. Covington Techs. Co., 967 F.2d 1391 (9th Cir. 1992) (post-judgment intervention timely if within appeal period)
United States v. Washington, 86 F.3d 1499 (9th Cir. 1996) (distinguishes broader intervention when future subproceedings are implicated)
United States v. Oregon, 839 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1988) (existing party may inadequately represent intervenor when it will not make specific arguments)
Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 276 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2002) (contract party is necessary in actions seeking to set aside contract)
Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist. v. Lee, 672 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard whether present party will undoubtedly make all proposed intervenor's arguments)