Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc. (16-605)

argument 16-605

Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 1m 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

Why does Rule 24 A‑2 require an intervener to demonstrate Article III standing?

John G. Roberts 0:00

Your argument next in case sixteen six oh five, the town of Chester versus LaRoe Estates. Mr. Cottio.

Mr. Kattiel 0:07

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. Had Loreau filed a lawsuit against the town of Chester, it would have been dismissed for lack of standing. However, Loreau claims that because it sought intervention under Rule 24A2, that things are different. That's wrong. An intervener of right is a full-blown party and can invoke the full suite of powers of the Federal Judiciary from subpoenas to summary judgment. But standing is not dispensed in gross, and those invocators. Of judicial power must be grounded in Article III, and that is particularly so because of two key facts. First, Rule 24A2 situates interveners in a different position from regular plaintiffs, insofar as interveners only must show that the existing parties don't adequately represent their interests.

Mr. Kattiel 0:50

So it is absolutely foreseeable that an intervener will adopt a different position than the parties in the case and invoke federal judicial power. And second, like here, when a party challenges the standing of an intervener in district court, that court does not abuse its discretion when it conducts the standing inquiry. This rule is efficient, it avoids all sorts of contingent contingent derivative interests.

Unknown 1:13

It sets up a difference between intervening on the defendant's side and the plaintiff's side. Intervening on the defendant's side under your scheme. And That's Uh easy. But not on the plaintiff side. And why should there be that disuniformity?

Mr. Kattiel 1:30

Yeah, I don't know that there is any sort of disuniformity. The first thing I'd say is, Justice Ginsburg, you know, this case involves a plaintiff intervener, and some of the defendant intervener standards and stuff does get a little meta, and I don't know that you have to reach it here. But if you were to reach it and you were to ask, I'd say that the inquiry would be essentially the same. This court in Hollingsworth versus Perry basically gave us that test for what that is. And it said in Hollingsworth, or Ordinarily, we think of standing as something about plaintiffs, but it's also true about defendants too. And when a defendant on appeal is trying to bring an appeal or something like that. The question is, how is the judgment below creating some sort of concrete harm to them?

Mr. Kattiel 2:12

And we think that same test applies here. It applies to both plaintiffs and defendants, agreed that sometimes it gets a little bit difficult in the application. It's very easy to see how it applies for plaintiffs, a little more difficult for defendants. But we aren't saying that the rules should be different.

Unknown 2:27

So you're saying that an intervener must have the same standing as a plaintiff would have? And that hasn't been the understanding in the courts or the commentators. You're probably familiar with the intervention Commentary by David Shapiro. In which he said, It should go without saying. It must be understood that there is a difference in between the qu the question Whether one is a proper plaintiff in or defendant in initial action and the question whether one is entitled to intervene.

Mr. Kattiel 3:06

So so we think with respect to A two interveners, they are full blown parties. That's what this court in Eisenstein said. And for those folks, they do have to show the same type of standing as a plaintiff. That doesn't mean that they have to show the exact same standing. They could have a different injury than a plaintiff in a given case, but they are going to exercise Justice Ginsburg The full suite of powers, and it doesn't make sense to say that they should be off the hook for the

Unknown 3:33

permissive interveners.

Mr. Kattiel 3:43

So a good example is this Court's decision in Stringfellow, in which the whole complaint by the intervener before this court was Hey, you know, I want to exercise the full blown rights of a party. This district court only gave me twenty-four B permissive intervention and imposed restrictions on, for example, discovery. And they said they they came to the court and said that wasn't fair. We should have been a full party.