Appellate Section - Third Party Intervention in Civil Rights Cases

Briefs and Opinions

• La Union Del Pueblo Entero v. Harris County Republican Party (5th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court correctly denied the Committees’ motion to intervene
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 29 F.4th 299	03/25/22
  Brief as Appellee	01/19/22

• United States v. New Orleans (5th Cir.) - Appellee
  • Timeliness is a threshold requirement for all motions to intervene
  • Juengain has never satisfied any of the other requirements for intervention as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2)
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Order	09/11/20
  Response in Opposition to Summary Reversal and Cross-Motion for Summary Affirmance	08/13/20

• United States v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections (1st Cir.) - Appellee
  • Timeliness is a predicate requirement for all motions to intervene
  • Badillo’s motion to intervene was not timely filed
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Badillo both intervention as of right and permissive intervention
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 142 S. Ct. 96 (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari)	10/04/21
  Court of Appeals Judgment	02/22/21
  Joint Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Affirmance	09/26/19
  Appellees' Joint Motion for Summary Affirmance	08/26/19

• United States v. Puerto Rico (1st Cir.) - Appellee
  • The text of the bankruptcy stay provisions, 11 U.S.C. 362 and 922, and this Court’s practice under PROMESA require that this appeal be stayed pending resolution of Puerto Rico’s petition for adjustment of debts
   

  Document	Date
  Response to Court Order to Show Cause	10/09/18

• United States v. City of Austin, et al. (5th Cir.) - Plaintiff-Appellee
  • Because appellants failed to establish a sufficient interest to support intervention, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying intervention
  • The court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to hear a challenge by nonparties to the district court's approval of the decree
  • Even if the court of appeals addresses the validity of the decree, the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the decree because it is fair, reasonable, and consistent with the law
  • The proposed intervenors' arguments in their second motion are, in large part, verbatim of arguments already rejected by the Fifth Circuit, and that the few new arguments are insufficient to satisfy any criteria for a stay
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a stay; appellants cannot satisfy any criteria for a stay; and there are no grounds for an expedited appeal
   

  Document	Date
  Dismissed	05/21/15
  Brief as Appellee	04/21/15
  Court of Appeals Order	12/23/14
  Opposition to Renewed Motion to Stay	12/04/14
  Court of Appeals Order	10/22/14
  Opposition to Emergency Motion for a Stay and Expedited Appeal	10/20/14

• Veasey v. Perry (S. Ct. and 5th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The Court should affirm the district court's finding that S.B.14 has a prohibited discriminatory result
  • The Court should affirm the district court's finding that S.B.14 was enacted with discriminatory intent
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in permanently enjoining Texas from enforcing S.B.14's photo-id provisions
  • The motion should be granted only to the extent it seeks special calendaring priority
  • The district court could properly enjoin S.B.14 for this election based on the facts and circumstances of this case
  • The Fifth Circuit had clearly and demonstrably erred in issuing a stay pending appeal
  • The district court properly denied True the Vote's motion because it failed to satisfy three of the four requirements for mandatory intervention
  • The motion to expedite is dilatory
  • The motion for a stay is procedurally improper
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 796 F.3d 487	08/05/15
  Brief as Appellee	03/03/15
  Court of Appeals Order	12/10/14
  Response to Motion to Expedite Appeal	12/02/14
  Supreme Court Order, reported at 135 S. Ct. 9	10/18/14
  Emergency Application to Vacate the Stay of Final Judgment Pending Appeal	10/15/14
  Court of Appeals Order, reported at 769 F.3d 890	10/14/14
  Opposition to Emergency Application to Stay Final Judgment Pending Appeal	10/12/14
  Court of Appeals Order, available at 577 F. App'x 261	08/05/14
  Court of Appeals Order	07/21/14
  Brief as Appellee	06/02/14
  Response in Opposition to Motion to Expedite and for a Stay	05/15/14

• Brumfield v. Louisiana State Board of Education (5th Cir.) - Intervenor-Appellee
  • The reporting order challenged on appeal is similar to a discovery order and cannot be appealed under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1)
  • Alternatively, the United States need not show that the voucher program violates the law in order for the district court to require the State to report information regarding the voucher program under the Brumfield injunction
  • Movants have no interest in the proceedings that warrants their intervention, since the United States seeks only information regarding the program's effects
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 806 F.3d 289	11/10/15
  Brief as Intervenor-Appellee	02/19/15
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 749 F.3d 339	04/10/14
  Brief as Intervenor-Appellee	03/06/14

• United States v. Diaz-Castro (1st Cir.) - Plaintiff-Appellee
  • The Court should dismiss Diaz-Castro's appeals because it lacks jurisdiction over the appeals and the appeals present no substantial question
  • The Court should deny his motion for a preliminary injunction pending appeal as moot and because it fails to satisfy the four-factor test for injunctions
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision	01/17/14
  Motion to Dismiss	12/20/13
  Response to Motion Seeking Injunction Pending Appeal	12/20/13

• United States v. Territory of the Virgin Islands (3d Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion to intervene on timeliness grounds and because the United States adequately represented the inmates' interests
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 748 F.3d 514	04/11/14
  Brief as Appellee	05/28/13

• United States v. New Orleans (5th Cir.) - Plaintiff-Appellee
  • The would-be intervenors have not met the criteria for intervention as of right
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying their motions for permissive intervention
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 540 F. App'x 380	09/27/13
  Brief as Appellee	02/19/13

• United States v. New Jersey (3d Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for intervention
  • The court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to hear a challenge by nonparties to the district court's approval of the consent decree
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 134 S. Ct. 529 (United States waived response to the petition for a writ of certiorari) (S. Ct.)	11/04/13
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 522 F. App'x 167	06/13/13
  Brief as Appellee	01/23/13

• United States v. California (9th Cir.) - Plaintiff-Appellee
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for intervention on timeliness grounds
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 538 F. App'x 759	08/16/13
  Brief as Appellee	06/22/12

• Benjamin v. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (3d Cir.) – Amicus
  • Properly understood, Olmstead establishes community placement as the default for people for whom community placement is appropriate but who cannot express a preference either for or against community placement
  • The class certified in this case meets the requirements of Rule 23
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 701 F.3d 938	12/12/12
  Brief as Amicus	04/05/12

• Fisher & Mendoza v. Tucson Unified School District (9th Cir.) - Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee
  • Arizona's second motion for reconsideration is to be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard and that the motion was properly denied
  • As Arizona lacks a significantly protectable interest in this case, the outcome of the case did not impair Arizona's ability to protect its interests
  • Arizona's interests were adequately represented
  • The motion was untimely
  • The district court failed to follow Supreme Court precedent governing termination of court oversight of a desegregation decree in reaching its decision to grant unitary status and terminate this case
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 594 F. App'x 917	12/15/14
  Brief as Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee	11/13/13
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 652 F.3d 1131	07/19/11
  Brief as Plaintiff-Intervenor	04/29/11

• United States v. New Jersey (3d Cir.) – Appellee
  • The district court did not err in denying intervention
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 373 F. App'x 216	04/01/10
  Brief as Appellee	11/18/09

• United States v. New York Board of Elections & Nassau County Board of Elections (2d Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court was well within its discretion in denying the County intervention and that the new facts that arose following the United States' motion to enforce did not establish that the County has a cognizable interest in the litigation or that the State cannot adequately represent those interests
  • Nassau County has not met the four factors required to obtain a stay pending appeal
  • Nassau is bound by the district court's finding and Nassau's previous position that HAVA requires the replacement of New York State's lever machines
  • HAVA clearly prohibits the type of lever voting machine Nassau County wants to use
   

  Document	Date
  Order Denying Stay, Affirming Injunction, and Disposing Appeal	09/07/10
  Brief as Appellee	08/16/10
  Response Opposing Motion for Stay	07/01/10
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 312 F. App'x 353	04/15/08
  Letter Brief as Appellee	02/06/08

• Keys v. United States & Covington County School District (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that appellants' motion to intervene was untimely
  • Even if appellants' motion to intervene were timely, the district court correctly concluded that appellants are not entitled to intervention as of right
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 499 F.3d 464	09/05/07
  Brief as Appellee	02/16/07

• Hollywood Community Synagogue & United States v. City of Hollywood (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court did not err in denying appellants' motion to intervene
  • Appellants cannot challenge the entry of the consent decree on the ground that the district court should first have held a hearing
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 254 F. App'x 769	11/20/07
  Brief as Appellee	10/25/06

• United States v. Texas (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court had jurisdiction over this controversy
  • The district court properly allowed Hearne Independent School District to intervene in this action
  • This court should affirm the district court's injunction against TEA
  • This court should affirm the district court's injunction against Mumford Independent School District
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 457 F.3d 472	07/24/06
  Brief as Appellee	10/13/05

• Graham & United States v. Evangeline Parish School Board (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Because intervention was properly denied, the appeal should be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 132 F. App'x 507	05/17/05
  Brief as Appellee	10/21/04

• United States v. City of Detroit (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court correctly denied the Coalition's motion to intervene as of right
  • The Coalition is not entitled to permissive intervention
   

  Document	Date
  Dismissed	01/24/05
  Brief as Appellee	04/07/04

• Curry v. Macon County Bd. of Educ. (Clay County) & United States (11th Cir.) -- Intervenor/Appellee
  • The appeal should be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction
  • Proposed Intervenors do not satisfy the criteria for intervention
  • The district court acted well within its discretion in approving the consent order without a hearing
   

  Document	Date
  Dismissed	11/03/04
  Brief as Appellee	12/23/03
  Motion to Stay Denied	07/29/03
  United States' Opposition To Proposed Intervenors' Motion For A Stay Of Order Denying Intervention	06/26/03

• United States v. Macon County Board of Education (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Parent of former student has no right to appeal district court's approval of modification of a desegregation order
  • District court properly approved modification
   

  Document	Date
  Dismissed	02/12/02
  Brief as Appellee	12/13/01

• United States v. Law School Admissions Council (3d Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Unsuccessful law school applicant properly denied intervention into case brought by United States to enforce ADA in admissions testing
  • Unsuccessful law school applicant properly denied intervention may not appeal from judgment in underlying case
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 48 F. App'x 41	08/27/02
  Brief as Appellee	11/02/01
  Brief as Appellee	06/24/01

• United States v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Community groups and private individuals are not entitled to intervene in a case in order to enforce the consent decree entered between the United States and the City of Los Angeles resolving allegations of systemic police misconduct
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 288 F.3d 391	04/22/02
  Brief as Appellee	07/27/01

• United States v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Court of Appeals should deny the police union's motion for a stay pending its appeal of the district court's denial of its motion to intervene in the case between the United States and the City of Los Angeles regarding the operations of the Los Angeles Police Department
  • Police union was not entitled to intervene in case to challenge consent decree between the United States and City of Los Angeles to resolve allegations of systemic police misconduct when the consent decree imposed no obligations upon the union or its members and did not affect officers' collective bargaining rights
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 288 F.3d 391	04/22/02
  Brief as Appellee	06/04/01
  Court of Appeals Denial of Stay, unpublished	04/16/01
  Opposition to Stay	03/22/01

• Davis and United States v. City of Baker School Board (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Newly-formed school district formerly part of district under desegregation order remains subject to the orders affecting the school system until it has met its burden of showing that its separation will not adversely affect desegregation
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, unpublished	03/08/01
  Brief as Appellee	07/31/00

Browse Briefs by Category

Access to Justice
Affirmative Action
Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
Constitutionality of Federal Statutes
Criminal
Education
Employment Discrimination (Race, National Origin, Sex, and Religion)
Equal Credit Opportunity Act
Equal Protection Clause
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act
Housing
Immigration
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Institutionalized Persons
Police Misconduct (Civil Cases)
Religion Cases
Servicemember Cases
Third Party Intervention in Civil Rights Cases
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Voting
Other