Lexplug logoLexplug

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
578 F.2d 1341 (1978)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To intervene as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2), a party must show a sufficient interest that may be impaired by the litigation's outcome, and the burden to show that existing parties may not adequately represent that interest is minimal.


Facts:

  • Under the Atomic Energy Act, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) authorized New Mexico's Environmental Improvement Agency (NMEIA) to issue licenses for uranium mills.
  • The NRC does not prepare federal Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for licenses issued by NMEIA under this state agreement.
  • Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) filed a lawsuit seeking to require the preparation of an EIS before NMEIA could issue uranium mill licenses.
  • On the day the NRDC filed its suit, NMEIA granted a license to United Nuclear Corporation to operate a uranium mill at Church Rock, New Mexico.
  • Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation, one of the largest holders of uranium properties in New Mexico, operated a uranium mill under an NMEIA license and had an application for renewal pending.
  • The American Mining Congress is a trade association representing numerous mining companies, including uranium mill operators in New Mexico, whose interests would be affected by a mandatory EIS requirement.

Procedural Posture:

  • Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. sued the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico.
  • United Nuclear Corporation's motion to intervene was granted by the trial court.
  • Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation and the American Mining Congress filed motions to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) or, alternatively, for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b).
  • The district court denied the motions for intervention, finding that the movants' interests were adequately represented by United Nuclear.
  • Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation and the American Mining Congress (appellants) appealed the denial of their motions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a party seeking to intervene as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) meet the requirement of inadequate representation when an existing party is in the same industry but has potentially divergent interests due to differing circumstances, such as already possessing the license at issue in the lawsuit?


Opinions:

Majority - Doyle

Yes. A party seeking intervention as of right satisfies the requirement of inadequate representation by making a minimal showing that the representation by an existing party 'may be' inadequate. The court identified three requirements for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2): 1) the applicant must claim an interest in the subject of the action; 2) the disposition may as a practical matter impair their ability to protect that interest; and 3) their interest is not adequately represented by existing parties. The court found that Kerr-McGee had a significant, protectable interest because a ruling requiring an EIS would profoundly affect its pending license renewal and future operations. It determined that this interest would be practically impaired by the stare decisis effect of an adverse ruling, which is a sufficient impairment under the rule. Most importantly, the court held that the burden to show inadequate representation is minimal. While United Nuclear was in the same industry, its interests were not identical to the appellants'. United Nuclear already possessed its license and had a potential laches defense, creating a possibility that it might compromise the case in a way that would be unfavorable to Kerr-McGee and other companies, such as by agreeing to a prospective-only EIS requirement. This potential divergence of interests was sufficient to satisfy the minimal burden to show that representation 'may be' inadequate.



Analysis:

This decision establishes a liberal standard for intervention as of right in the Tenth Circuit, particularly regarding the 'inadequate representation' prong of Rule 24(a)(2). By holding that the burden to show inadequacy is 'minimal' and that a mere potential for divergent interests is sufficient, the court makes it easier for similarly situated parties to join litigation. The ruling also affirms that practical consequences, such as the stare decisis effect of a novel legal issue, can satisfy the 'impairment' requirement. This encourages broader participation in cases that could set wide-reaching precedents, especially in complex regulatory and environmental disputes where a single ruling can impact an entire industry.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1978)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"