Background
California and eleven other states sued federal officials to challenge Congressional Review Act resolutions that disapproved EPA waivers for California’s zero-emission vehicle regulations. Industry groups sought to intervene in the litigation, arguing they had protectable interests in the preemption of state regulations.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied a four-part test for intervention as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure twenty four A two. It found that automakers and dealers had a significantly protectable interest because the EPA waivers prevented them from invoking federal preemption, an interest that would be lost if the states succeeded. Conversely, the court found that trucking associations and corn growers had economic interests too attenuated from the core litigation to qualify. However, the court held that the district court erred in denying permissive intervention to the latter groups because federal defendants might not advance all their arguments.
What it means going forward
The ruling clarifies that industry groups with direct regulatory stakes in preemption claims may intervene as of right, while those with indirect economic impacts must seek permissive intervention. It ensures that trade associations can potentially participate in cases where federal defendants may not fully represent their specific legal arguments.