Despite passionate attempts to intervene in litigation that seems set on bringing Illinois in a growing fold of judicially sanctioned same-sex marriage states, two Illinois churches failed to meet the standards needed to intervene. This sets the stage for Lambda Legal and the ACLU to take down the law banning state officials from issuing marriage licenses in Illinois.
Whereas the article above describes state intervention, they operate very similarly. I, however, will ignore any differences for the purposes of illustrating intervention in federal court.
In Federal litigation, Rule 24 governs attempts to intervene in litigation. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(1), a court must permit timely intervention where an intervenor “is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(1).
Where intervention as a right is unavailable, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) provides that intervenors may seek intervention as of right where they have an interest and are “so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2).
Additionally, the Seventh Circuit has found that intervenors may intervene as of right where they can satisfy the following four elements: “(1) their motions to intervene were timely; (2) they possess an interest related to the subject matter of the ... action; (3) disposition of the action threatens to impair that interest; and (4) the [parties] fail to represent adequately their interest.” Ligas v. Maram, 478 F.3d 771, 773 (7th Cir. 2007); see also United States v. BDO Seidman, 337 F.3d 802, 808 (7th Cir. 2003). In addition, courts may deny intervenors’ motions where they fail to establish any of the required four elements. Id.
Finally, Rule 24(b), permissive intervention, requires that the intervenor, on a timely motion, assert either that she:
In Federal litigation, Rule 24 governs attempts to intervene in litigation. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(1), a court must permit timely intervention where an intervenor “is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(1).
Where intervention as a right is unavailable, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) provides that intervenors may seek intervention as of right where they have an interest and are “so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2).
Additionally, the Seventh Circuit has found that intervenors may intervene as of right where they can satisfy the following four elements: “(1) their motions to intervene were timely; (2) they possess an interest related to the subject matter of the ... action; (3) disposition of the action threatens to impair that interest; and (4) the [parties] fail to represent adequately their interest.” Ligas v. Maram, 478 F.3d 771, 773 (7th Cir. 2007); see also United States v. BDO Seidman, 337 F.3d 802, 808 (7th Cir. 2003). In addition, courts may deny intervenors’ motions where they fail to establish any of the required four elements. Id.
Finally, Rule 24(b), permissive intervention, requires that the intervenor, on a timely motion, assert either that she:
(A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or
(B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.
The Churches who tried to intervene were unable to establish, apart from hyperbole, that their rights, interests, or liberties were actually affected by someone else in the state allowing someone else to marry the person they love. Without a statutory basis, an ability to demonstrate timeliness, an adequate protectable interest, and that a judgment will actually impair that interest, it is impossible to actually join a lawsuit as a party. The Court, in its Order, noted that the two groups could file an amicus brief, which likely will be entertaining as they grapple to explain the more difficult question of how it is in the rational interest of the state to deny that loving couple the same rights as everyone else.
Its always a tough proposition to single out a minority group and explain why they are unworthy of being treated equally by the law.
Nair Law LLC stands for minority rights and proudly fights the fight. Contact us if your civil rights or liberties are jeopardized and you will find someone willing to do the right thing to realize the right results.
Its always a tough proposition to single out a minority group and explain why they are unworthy of being treated equally by the law.
Nair Law LLC stands for minority rights and proudly fights the fight. Contact us if your civil rights or liberties are jeopardized and you will find someone willing to do the right thing to realize the right results.
RSS Feed