Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College
93 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 792, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21303, 807 F.3d 472 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Intervention by right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) for inadequate representation is generally denied when the proposed intervenor shares the exact same ultimate legal goal as an existing party, even if they propose different strategic arguments or express speculative concerns about settlement.
Facts:
- Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA) filed a complaint alleging that Harvard College's undergraduate admissions policy was racially and ethnically discriminatory, violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Harvard College publicly admitted and proclaimed that it considers an applicant's race, among many other factors, in admissions decisions to increase student body diversity, including racial diversity.
- Harvard College denied that its consideration of race in admissions was unlawful.
- A group of current and prospective Harvard students ('Students') claimed to be benefited by Harvard's existing admissions practice.
- Students sought to intervene in the lawsuit to advocate 'vigorously' for the defeat of SFFA's claims and defend Harvard's right to consider race.
- Harvard College objected to Students' motion to intervene.
Procedural Posture:
- Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA) filed a complaint against the President and Fellows of Harvard College in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging that Harvard's undergraduate admissions policy was racially and ethnically discriminatory.
- A group of current and prospective Harvard students ('Students') filed a motion in the district court seeking to intervene in the lawsuit either by right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) or by permission under Rule 24(b).
- The district court denied the Students' motion to intervene but granted them leave to participate as amicus curiae, allowing them to submit briefs and participate in oral arguments.
- Students, as movants-appellants, appealed the district court's denial of their motion to intervene by right to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, naming SFFA and Harvard College as appellees.
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 or abuse its discretion in denying the movant-appellants' motion to intervene by right when their ultimate goal in the litigation was congruent with that of an existing party?
Opinions:
Majority - Kayatta, Circuit Judge
No, the district court did not err in denying the Students' motion to intervene by right, because Students failed to demonstrate that Harvard College would inadequately represent their interests. Intervention by right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) requires a movant to show that no existing party adequately represents their interest. The Students' claimed interests, such as increasing their chances of admission and being educated among a critical mass of diverse students, led them to adopt Harvard's exact goals of defending its race-conscious admissions policy and defeating SFFA's claims. When goals are congruent, the court presumes adequate representation, a presumption reinforced by Harvard's resources, counsel, and strong public stance. Students' arguments that Harvard might not make specific tactical arguments, such as chronicling the impact of legacy preferences, do not establish inadequate representation. Such arguments are not 'obviously' called for to achieve the shared goal and might even cut against Harvard's essential position that race-conscious admissions are necessary to achieve diversity. Furthermore, Students' speculative 'settlement risk' argument—that Harvard might prioritize other practices and settle—is insufficient, especially since intervention would not grant Students the legal basis to limit Harvard's discretion to settle. The court distinguished previous cases like Grutter v. Bollinger and Cotter v. Mass. Ass'n of Minority Law Enforcement Officers, finding them inapposite given the changed legal landscape and factual distinctions.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the 'inadequate representation' prong of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) within the First Circuit. It establishes a high bar for proposed intervenors when their ultimate legal goals align perfectly with an existing party, reinforcing the presumption of adequate representation in such circumstances. The decision suggests that mere tactical disagreements or speculative concerns about an existing party's willingness to settle or pursue every conceivable argument are generally insufficient to overcome this presumption, especially if those alternative arguments might undermine the shared goal. This ruling may make it more challenging for advocacy groups or individuals to intervene as full parties in cases where a well-resourced institutional defendant already represents their broad interests, potentially channeling their participation into amicus curiae roles.
