State of California v. United States – Do It For The Caselaw

Holding: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of intervention as of right for certain industry groups but reversed the denial of permissive intervention for others and remanded for further proceedings.
Standard: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure twenty four A two
Vote: Unpublished memorandum disposition affirming in part and reversing in part.
Practical effect: The ruling allows automakers and dealers to join the litigation to argue for federal preemption, while requiring the district court to reconsider whether other industry groups may permissively intervene.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of intervention as of right for several industry groups while reversing the denial of permissive intervention for others. The court held that automakers and dealers have a significantly protectable interest in federal preemption under the Clean Air Act.

Background

California and eleven other states sued the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency, and federal officials to challenge Congressional Resolutions that disapproved EPA waivers for California’s zero-emission vehicle regulations. Industry groups sought to intervene in the litigation, arguing that the Resolutions affected their ability to sell federally approved vehicles or that their economic interests were at stake.

The court’s reasoning

The court applied the four-part test for intervention as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure twenty four A two. It found that automakers and dealers have a right to sell federally approved vehicles, which is a significantly protectable interest that may be impaired if the states succeed. Conversely, the court found that the economic interests of trucking associations, fuel manufacturers, and corn growers were too attenuated from the core legal issue to qualify for intervention as of right. However, the court determined that the district court abused its discretion in denying permissive intervention to these groups because the federal defendants may not adequately represent all their arguments.

What it means going forward

The ruling allows automakers and dealers to join the litigation to argue for federal preemption, while requiring the district court to reconsider whether other industry groups may permissively intervene.