Stuart v. Huff
N/A (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a prospective intervenor shares the same ultimate objective as an existing government party, the intervenor must make a strong showing of inadequate representation to intervene as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). A mere disagreement with the government's reasonable litigation strategy is insufficient to meet this high burden.
Facts:
- In July 2011, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the 'Woman’s Right to Know Act'.
- The Act required that before an abortion, a physician or qualified technician must provide the pregnant woman with a real-time ultrasound display and a 'simultaneous explanation of what the display is depicting.'
- The Act also contained other informed consent provisions and created civil remedies for violations of the law.
- A group of physicians and medical centers that provide abortion services opposed the Act, believing it violated the constitutional rights of physicians and their patients.
- A group of pro-life medical professionals, women who had previously undergone abortions, and pregnancy counseling centers sought to defend the Act's constitutionality.
- This pro-life group believed the North Carolina Attorney General, who was already defending the Act, was not employing the best legal strategy, specifically by not presenting factual evidence at an early hearing.
Procedural Posture:
- A group of physicians and medical centers (plaintiffs) sued North Carolina state officials in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
- Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the 'Woman’s Right to Know Act' was unconstitutional and filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
- The defendants, represented by the North Carolina Attorney General, opposed the motion.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction against the Act's real-time display and explanation requirements but denied it for the remainder of the Act.
- A group of pro-life professionals and organizations (appellants) filed a motion to intervene as defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24.
- The district court denied the motion for intervention as of right and for permissive intervention.
- The would-be intervenors (appellants) appealed the district court's denial of their motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
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 group of private citizens have a right to intervene in a lawsuit to defend a state statute when the state's Attorney General is already actively defending the statute and the group's claimed basis for intervention is a disagreement with the Attorney General's litigation strategy?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilkinson, J.
No. A group of private citizens does not have a right to intervene in a lawsuit to defend a state statute where the Attorney General is already providing adequate representation. When a prospective intervenor's objective is the same as that of an existing government party, there is a strong presumption that the government's representation is adequate, and this presumption cannot be overcome by a mere disagreement over litigation tactics. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to intervene. The court established that where a government agency is a party, a would-be intervenor must make a 'strong showing' of inadequate representation, aligning the Fourth Circuit with every other circuit to have ruled on the issue. This heightened standard is justified because representing the public interest is a core government function, and allowing frequent intervention would complicate litigation and undermine the government's ability to conduct its business. The appellants' disagreements with the Attorney General's decisions—such as relying on legal arguments from Planned Parenthood v. Casey instead of introducing new factual evidence, and choosing to litigate to a final judgment rather than immediately appealing a preliminary injunction—were characterized as reasonable tactical choices, not evidence of adversity of interest, collusion, or nonfeasance. Therefore, the appellants failed to rebut the strong presumption of adequate representation.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a high bar for intervention as of right in public law litigation where a government entity is already defending its own statute. By aligning with other circuits, the Fourth Circuit establishes a consistent federal standard that prioritizes governmental authority and judicial efficiency over the participation of every interested private party. By defining disagreements over litigation strategy as insufficient to prove 'inadequate representation,' the court significantly curtails the ability of interest groups to second-guess or co-opt the legal defense mounted by a state's attorney general, reinforcing the government's primary role as the defender of its laws.
