Arakaki v. Cayetano
324 F.3d 1078, 2003 WL 1635184 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Intervention as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) requires a proposed intervenor to demonstrate a timely application, a significantly protectable interest directly related to the subject matter of the existing action, potential impairment of that interest, and inadequate representation by existing parties; intervenors cannot introduce new, unrelated issues.
Facts:
- Arakaki et al. (Plaintiffs) filed a civil action against the State of Hawaii and state agencies (Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, Hawaiian Homes Commission), challenging the constitutionality of providing exclusive benefits to Hawaiians and native Hawaiians.
- Plaintiffs alleged that the provision of these benefits was racially discriminatory, violating the Equal Protection clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and constituted a breach of the public land trust established by § 5(f) of the Hawaii Admission Act.
- Josiah Hoohuli and other native Hawaiians are lessees of Hawaiian homestead lands or applicants for such leases, receiving or seeking to receive benefits from the challenged programs.
- Hoohuli asserted two primary interests: (1) to ensure the continued receipt of benefits for native Hawaiians, and (2) to limit the class of eligible beneficiaries to only native Hawaiians, excluding the broader 'Hawaiian' class.
- Hoohuli also sought to argue that native Hawaiians should be entitled to tribal status to receive more deferential review of their benefits, absent alleged discrimination by the United States.
Procedural Posture:
- On March 4, 2002, Arakaki et al. (Plaintiffs) filed a civil action in district court against the State of Hawaii and various state agencies (OHA, DHHL, HHC).
- On March 18, 2002, the district court granted the motion to intervene by proposed defendants-intervenors State Council of Hawaiian Homestead Association (SCHHA) and Anthony Sang, Sr.
- On March 25, 2002, Hoohuli filed its motion to intervene in the district court.
- On May 2, 2002, a magistrate judge denied Hoohuli’s motion to intervene.
- Hoohuli timely appealed the magistrate judge's denial to the district court.
- On May 8, 2002, the district court dismissed for lack of standing Plaintiffs’ breach of the public land trust claims, ruling that only equal protection challenges asserted as taxpayers remained.
- On June 13, 2002, the district court denied Hoohuli’s motion to intervene, both as a matter of right and permissively.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court err in denying Hoohuli’s motion to intervene as a matter of right in a lawsuit challenging the provision of benefits to Hawaiians and native Hawaiians?
Opinions:
Majority - Hug, Circuit Judge
No, the district court did not err in denying Hoohuli's motion to intervene as a matter of right because the breach of trust claim was no longer active, Hoohuli's interest in limiting benefits was unrelated to the plaintiffs' remaining claims, and their interest in continuing to receive benefits was adequately represented by existing parties. The court explained that intervention on the public land trust beneficiary claim was inappropriate because that claim had been dismissed by the district court and was no longer the subject of the plaintiffs' action, meaning Hoohuli had no significantly protectable interest in this particular claim. Regarding the equal protection claims, the court acknowledged that Hoohuli had a significantly protectable interest in the continued receipt of benefits as native Hawaiians, as a ruling for the plaintiffs would impair this interest. However, Hoohuli's additional interest in limiting the class of beneficiaries to only native Hawaiians (the 'dilution interest') was deemed unrelated to the plaintiffs' claims, which broadly challenged all benefits to Hawaiians and native Hawaiians. The court emphasized that a party cannot intervene to inject new, unrelated issues into existing litigation. Finally, the court found that Hoohuli failed to overcome the presumption of adequate representation by existing parties, specifically the State defendants and the already-intervened native Hawaiian group, SCHHA. The State had a statutory and constitutional obligation to protect native Hawaiians' interests and pledged to make all necessary arguments, including the tribal status defense. Differences in litigation strategy, such as the specific argument for tribal status, do not normally justify intervention when parties share the same ultimate objective, which here was defending the benefits for native Hawaiians.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the strict application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) requirements, particularly regarding the 'significantly protectable interest' and 'adequate representation' elements. It establishes that proposed intervenors must demonstrate a direct, tangible connection between their interest and the specific claims remaining in the litigation, preventing the introduction of extraneous issues. The ruling also reinforces the high bar for proving inadequate representation, especially when government entities or similarly aligned groups are already participating, highlighting that mere differences in litigation strategy are usually insufficient. This precedent guides courts in managing complex multi-party litigation by balancing the policy of liberal intervention with the need to maintain focus on the original scope of the lawsuit.
