claims that because it's not intervention under rule twenty four eighty two that things are different that's wrong and intervenor of right is a full blown party and can invoke the full suite of powers of the federal judiciary from subpoenas to summary judgment but standing is so far as intervenors only must show that the existing parties don't adequately represent their interests so it is absolutely foreseeable that in intervenor will adopt a different position than the parties in the case and invoked federal judicial power and second but if you were to research it and you were to ask i'd say that the inquiry would be essentially the same this court in hollingsworth versus perry basically gave us that test for what that is and it said in hollingsworth ordinarily we think of standing as something about plaintiffs but it's also true about the true and when a defendant on appeal is trying to bring an appeal or something like that the question is how good is the judgment below creating some sort of concrete harm to them and we think that same t applies here it applies to both plaintiffs and defendants agreed that sometimes it gets a little bit difficult in the application it's very easy to scout applies for plaintiffs a little more difficult for defendants but we aren't saying that the rules should be different the strain commentary by david shapiro and which he said it should go without saying it must be understood that there is a difference between the question of whether one is the proper plaintiffs in or defendant in initial action and the question whether one is entitle to intervene so so we think with respect to a chew intervenors they are full blown parties that's what this court in  said and for those folks they do have to show the same type of standing as the plaintiff that doesn't mean that they have to show the exact same standing they could have a different injury than a plaintiff in a given case but they are going to exercise justice ginsburg the full suite of powers and it doesn't make sense to say that they should be off the hook for how bad the myth can it be prevented permissive interviews are absolutely different as our brief explains because twenty four b allows federal courts to impose all sorts of restrictions on them and so a good example is this court's decision in stringfellow in which the whole complaint by the intervenor before this court was hey you know i want to exercise the full blown rights of a party this district court only gave me twenty four b permi intervention imposed restrictions on for example discovery and they said they they came to the court and said that wasn't fair we should have been a full party and this court rejected that and justice brennan's opinion tracked his concurring opinion track that of the majority in have federal courts have all sorts of powers over permissive intervenors that they don't they can restrict discovery they can restrict claims all sorts of that that's not true full full blown party status now one last piece justice ginsburg it is the case that some permissive intervenors under twenty four b do have standing and for those folks they can exercise again the full suite of powers as long as there's no restriction on them put on them by the federal court there's no article three problem with that matter if you're wrong with doing this think of a party you want to court to do something you can't invoke a court power to do something including an appellate court unless you have standing say to intervene or in which case it would save the court lots of trouble if there were many intervenors you wouldn't have to look into the standing or you would if and only if they want the court to do something different so just as much of that so that the question is by in your hype in your question about what in intervene or as we agree that everything you said makes sense for permissive intervenors but for an aide to intervene or the reason they're coming to the court is i was saying at the outset is because they disagree with what the parties are doing they everywhere haps with the argument the lawyer amazingly thinks he's a better lawyer than the one who's already there and so he thinks he can make a better argument correct but if he doesn't want anything different than what they've already asked for why does article three insist that he have standing justice breyer i'm unaware of anyone who thinks that there are somehow a better lawyer than someone else who doesn't think that they would have a different take with respect to claims relief this very case he may want nothing different of will all he may want is that the town gives the plaintiff the money and then he will make his own case just say i'm equitably entitle let's take this very case so the serp attention a page five said look discovery subpoenas these are all very important parts of civil litigation our entire blue brief is all about that they don't just claim anything except claims in relief well i think there's an asterisk about but which i'll explain in a minute but everything about the trial who has those claims who seeks that relief so the court is doing exactly what the court has authority to do but this intervenor can contribute to the way the court is thinking about the  all the discovery things in the only way a court can act is with article three that is particularly so when you're thinking about discovery there have been opinion after opinion of this court from a call to twamley to justice briar's opinion a m d that say that discovery is becoming the ball game in litigation and if you don't come find federal courts for their lame as article three does and allow bystanders sometimes ideological bystanders who don't have article three standing you are imposing that  of the discovery and other burdens that you're talking about why isn't it ok to do it with automatic intervenors who are limited to only the it's not about the label it's about the function that is of a permissive intervenor is seeking discovery is seeking subpoenas is seeking to invoke the federal judicial power they must have standing my only point is the types of people that justice briar's positing the people who say hey i'm just a better lawyer i'm going to do the exact same stuff claims really for so on those are permissive intervenors or they are miki and they don't need to show standing in order for them to participate in the life cycle of the case that's often how you at what point the article three determination you say is required is made i mean i would think that why would it be necessary to do that at the outset why would it be when you get out and intervene or who decides certainly if he's going to raise a different time but also is is the one and the plaintiff is not the one imposing particularly burdensome discovery can you wait until then with the other party objection say oh now i've got to look at your article three standing because you're doing something that changes the litigation justice we don't think we have to win that by any stretch we certainly think that the what matters more than the one the white being that whenever a federal judicial indications of power be it subpoenas or summary judgment is invoked that's when article three standing is required with respect to timing we do think that the best course of action for a bunch of reasons is to do that at the outset but you know you don't have to reach that here here the district court did and my friend on the other side would have to convince you that that's somehow an abuse of discretion which i think is a very hard thing to do in order for you to reverse the decision below but here are some reasons why i think that threshold inquiry makes sense at the front and one is the federal courts already reviewing the twenty four eight two standards at that point and it's a very closely analogous if not exactly identical set of questions and so it makes sense to do it all in one piece rather than doing it separately second as my friend on the other side's brief admits there's no t that that later in cory will even happen indeed his briefing page thirty admits that they kind of hope it doesn't happen that some extra related claims will come in and that's particularly so when it comes to for example federal rules civil procedure forty five subpoenas as to which the court doesn't often even find out about they're just issued and the power of the federal court is invoke provide intervention right with someone who doesn't satisfy article three there are several statutes that do provide the intervention right so so i think that it depends on what intervention means if it if  statute provides for full blown party status for someone who lacks the components of article three that to me every day of the week is unconstitutional and that is precisely what they are advocating for that's what we say well one of our  federal judicial power in a way different from what that party with standing in the suit does that flouts article three this court seven daimler chrysler standing is not dispensed in gross and the idea that just because you have one point of withstanding that allows someone else in intervene or to invoke the federal judicial power in all sorts of other ways i think that would be a pretty important putting intervenors aside supposed ten plaintiffs scotch together and brought a suit so th were all joined in the same suit and the district court sat satisfied itself that one of those plaintiffs had standing that there was a proper case and controversy before the court that nobody else was asking for anything else or making differently from those plaintiffs because plaintiffs generally march in lockstep they file the same complaint the roll on it together they don't have to certify to the court and prove inadequate representation of the existing parties and so if you look for example at they're brief the one intervenor then it becomes not oh well i think that you know to the extent that some party didn't have standing it might be tested at that point i just think the case for threshold standing inquiries into what i was saying to the chief justice i think is different for parties precisely because you can presume that parties do march in lock step and here's a very good example the only case that they cite in their brief or when plaintiffs don't march in lockstep is a case called archer and when you go back and look at that case those parties filed the exact same discovery requests and that's intervenors do deviate in terms of their indications of you dish will power from the existing parties you can't say that about copeland mr carro i was trying to understand then the universe of cases in which a party  someone seeking intervention would be able to come in under twenty four and a two by claiming an interest relating to the property or transaction but would not be able to claim injury in fact and i found it difficult to identify the universe of cases and i said well this is one of them this case must be one of them but actually it doesn't seem it seems to me that the row has article three standing room may not be the maid may not equitable owner of the property isn't that enough for injury in fact we don't think it is so so two things first is we do think that the rule tracks article three and they basically move close stenciling second with respect to the facts here and contingent interests like this one contingent on zoning approvals and so on isn't enough for article three just as it wouldn't be i mean if you adopt their position you are so i could take out a derivative on the outcome of the case that you heard today in the first hour perry versus m p s be in bed a million dollars on who's going to win in the district court that would allow me intervenor status under the rule and under this view of article three and then allow me to be a full blown party that can't possibly deny i feel it's almost as if i had the same trouble with justice alito that i don't know why this party doesn't because at the end of the day if there's a regulatory taking the same incidentally that takings awarded mostly mine now do we just take this case on the assumption that there's no standing i do think that's the way the case comes to the court and you know i think this kind of contingency speculative interest would flunk this court's precedents about article three particularly clapper leaders point if if as a practical matter you have an interest to protect that almost sounds required to focus on whether an interlinear can establish standing to initiate a lawsuit but in our view that is not the appropriate focus but the rule itself focuses on is whether it intervene or could be injured by the disposition of the pending the it's it's much more like asking whether a party has standing to appeal and it is like asking whether a party would have standing to initiate a lawsuit but you look at is whether there is a particular outcome of the lawsuit that one of the parties is trying to obtain and you ask if that outcome happened would it injure the intervenor the potential intervenor such that that person the intervenor would have standing to appeal and so it's the same when you're talking about a plaintiff or a defendant now they have to have an interest that's related to the underlying dispute but their injury comes from the disposition of the lawsuit if any is your position different from that of the two shooters i think it's not particularly different you know i think they take sort of a stronger line than we do on the constitutional question our view is that you could imagine i think everyone here agrees that there are some things the party iligan would do that don't require standing like presenting oral arguments filing briefs there are some things that do require standing like seeking damages filing a new view there are some other things in the middle better kind of fuzzy in our view as a few radical matter you can imagine a system or a person could easily obtain the label intervenor and then a court could later inquire into that intervene or stay if and when they did something that would require standing we think as a matter of reading the rule that the rule that the drafters of the rule have required that inquiry up front we think the requirements of art of rule twenty four eighty two are best read to map on to article three of standing but this rule was drafted was adopted in one nine hundred sixty six which is before this court case is unlike sierra club and defenders of wildlife what would be just right i mean given that that's true do you think are you saying that congress had it in mind to track the requirements of stand and whatever they turned out to be because of course the standing doctrine in one thousand sixty six was nothing like what it is now it was different but that by the standing doctrine and intervention those have always required that intervene or for a party have an interest and this court going back to the beginning of the twentieth century had said that you know that an interest that is contingent hypothetical is not sufficient for intervention just like it said it's not sufficient for standing now the predecessor to the one hundred sixty six version of the rule or allowed intervention as of right if the party would be bound by the judgment or for party had an in an actual interest in property that was going to be distributed by the court i think it's clear that both of those deaths of people would have had standing and so that's kind of the people that i think the rule drafters had in mind there certainly my readers probably i don't know i were i would draw begin to get a kind of blank used defendant standing i can see defendants standing on appeal it's true but forget it what about on the initial thing when does is there are there any cases are there is there a good article when natural to say what harm in a way that would give it standing to appeal and so what the defendant is trying to do is instead of waiting until that point of trying to come in and prevent the injuries let's go to that second part of just a sort of my arms question about the imminent and the respondent not give the defendant constitutional avoidance but the upshot of the applying the doctrine here to avoid the question whether interviewers have to have article three standing would be that we'd have to ask the article three question of selectively through the guise admittedly of rule twenty four and every yes i mean i think congress has done that and with a number of statutes i think in those cases the intervention would be those engineers would not be permitted to do something that would require standing without a subsequent assessment of the standing  intervenors so you know in this case as in many cases i think the point of the intervenors attempting to intervene is that he wants to get damages well you can't get damages if you don't have standing and so even if he prevails here they're going to have to be some showing at some point down the road that he has standing to get damaged i'm not sure i understood your answer the question you said this person does not have to show standard article three standing in the first instance but if she tries to do something different than what the plaintiff was doing she does yes i mean the thought the question was if there was a setting aside rule twenty four if there was a statute that authorized intervention and right we didn't want to there are several statute yes so our view is as a constitutional matter again you could have a system where you could easily get the label of intervene or and then a court could later inquire into your standing if and when you did something that required standing we think will twenty four eight to his best right to require that standing up front and for some of the reasons that mr coffey i was saying that's because the rule requires an interviewer to show that their interests are not adequately represented by existing parties and that they're going to  so you think it is satisfactory to satisfy the constitutional requirement of standing if congress says you have standing no no and the question was if congress as a party can intervene as of right and doesn't require a showing of standing we don't think that is a violation of the constitution as long as you don't let that intervene or later do something that requires standing without then asking for a showing you go into that here no you don't have to go into that there's been a couple questions about sort of piggyback intervenors and i think you have to keep in mind that there's rule twenty four b which is a lot of permissive intervention a permissive intervention expressly contemplates that a party has claims has legal questions or factual questions in common with existing parties and i think if a person just wants to i mean and so i have the same kind of claim you do they can see each person intervention or they can just file their own claim the point of rule twenty four and two is that there's a potential injury from the disposition of the last to the person who's trying to intervene but the the best lawyer in the world and they've made every conceivable argument but you're still a contract than do or with the kind of potential injury that the others assumed would give you standing why is that we article three is but that's that's appropriate because it is a person trying to come and sort of intrude on an existing lawsuit and there you need to show that you really need to be able to come in because otherwise your interests are going to be impaired by the lawsuit so you think the ultimate question under article three is really the same as the ultimate question underworld twenty four eighty two and under article three if you're asking whether a person can initiate a lawsuit or can appeal what you're asking is do they have a substantial enough interest in the outcome of this actual dispute and it's really the same inquiry under will twenty four eight to school thank you mr chief justice and may it please the court petitioners effort to turn every intervention motion into a constitutional question is a solution in search of a problem article three requires only a case or controversy it does not speak to the question of who can join an existing case or controversy so somebody who has no connection other than that they're very interested in the subject it's an environmental case this year club wants to be involved but it's all right to allow them to intervene as a party because there is a case or controversy they don't you know they wouldn't satisfy article three standing but they don't have to according to you so their views were valuable their participation in you know just depositions discovery all might help the court so why not mr chief justice role twenty four a two would not allow the party that you know i know i'm asking a constitutional question putting aside exactly what the rule is if you say all there has to be is existing case or controversy and once there is you don't care whether the person has standing congress could pass a statute saying anybody even the court thinks is appropriate you know an expert in the area qualified with a record or whatever they can jump in and participate as a party and you would say that's ok article three would not speak to that particular bad idea by congress and i can't tell whether that's a yes or a no that is a yes i proceeding is ok constitutionally it is ok rule twenty four does not authorize that if congress were to do something like that district courts would have ample tools the same as the tools they use now to manage multi party litigation and to prevent these hypothetical interveners from helping the case and i hope i haven't given congress an idea but i mean is that consistent with what we've said that article three standing plays a central role in the separation of powers absolutely because the purpose of article three its core purpose is to prevent courts from issuing advisory opinions about the actions of the political branches absent a need to do so absent a case or controversy what it took as it goes along the defendant says well i'm going to settle with the original pla you know he's raised this claim i'm going to do this but i'm going to litigate against the sierra club is that ok no because at that point there would no longer be a case or controversy for the sierra club to participate in abs its own injury that it was pursuing relief or that the keep the key point under article three is that its purpose is to prevent the judicial machinery from being mobilized in the first instance and opining on the actions of the political  hypothetical example of a case where intervention should be allowed because it's important but there's no article three standing maybe outside of the context of this i think there may be article three saying what is there a practical illustration you can give us for why it's very important to allow this interview to the rules even though there's no standing i think defendant intervenors are the best example of that and it doesn't make sense to ask whether a defendant intervene or whether it's an environmental group defending and in e p a regulation whether it's white employees intervening in a discrimination claim to defend the employer's promotion practices here of course we have a pla gave me an example of that so either the context was sure so an example might be the plaintiffs in in clapper did not have standing because there was no evidence in that case that their interest in not being surveilled was actually being infringed if hypothetically speaking you had a resident of a house who was being surveilled or plausibly alleged that why is being surveilled perhaps the roommate of that individual who cell phone was not presently being wiretapped whose movements were not presently being tracked would have an interest under rule twenty four that interest might well be impaired or impeded if the wiretapping program and to protect the union members interest in that case and with a lack of article three standing the union member in trivett would lack article three standing because of the particular statute issue there in which congress authorized only the secretary of labor to presumably if congress had authorized the cause of action we'd have to look at the union members particular market could i come back to justice kennedy's question can you give me a real case where there is a when are you believe that the requirements of twenty four eight to our map but there is not there was not article three standing so again i think the defendant intervener examples are right of plaintiff interveners so so let me talk for a moment about this case  absolutely have standing in this case because we are the purchasers of the property if you actually go through all of the agreements and go through new york law about ownership interest it does get complicated  again we the engine the interest that we have is not a contingent one as the second circuit recognized were actually the equitable owner but let's say that in parsing through all of these agreements and all of these facts it were determined that legal title is the key to having standing to pursuing a regular takings claim again i don't believe that that ought to be the outcome here but if you had such a situation we would have a sufficient interest even if as a technical matter we lack legal standing our equitable ownership interest would be a sufficient one to be protected under rule twenty four it would be imperative if we were absent from this litigation and we ought in that situation to be allowed to intervene the second circuit assumed otherwise right it decided this case on the assumption that there was an article three standing right it didn't it did not decide the question on that assumption it simply did not reach the question of whether there was article three standing or not the district court had held incorrectly we believe that we lacked standing and what the second circuit held was that the district court was wrong as a matter of law to require that inquiry in the first place well so now you're arguing before us that in fact you do have article three standing so that if we agree with you the second circuit decision that it's not necessary would stand right it would if you must when you want to decide is a real estate law question under new york law well i'm not asking you to decide that question i was trying to respond to that the hypothetical was about a point if you would lack standing how does the defendant have standing how does that work with the government says is the defendant has standing because the judgment in the case may affect an interest of the defendant a significant interest is that right that's not an article three standing inquiry and in fact the article three stand i mean i don't see anymore with the defendant how you can find a defendant without standing on that basis i mean the reason i find it bro of and is because i think the other side is arguing that intervenor has to have standing in the sense the defendant us to have standing at least when you intervene on the side of the defended as most do so first of all it doesn't make sense to speak about whether a defendant intervene or has standing because the defendant intervene or is not the one who is alleging an injury and invoking the authority of the court second of all we can't i can we write an opinion so the only people have definitely i don't know how to write this opinion unless you're talking about standing in general yes or no on that and why can a defendant invoke the court's power on appeal for example subpoenas discovery were defendants all the time invoked the court's power and how can they do that if they don't have i don't know even how this phrase the question but you see what i'm driving at i think what you're driving at is the difficulty of writing an opinion that applies a standing o not ready to go to writing opinion i want to know is there such a thing as defendants having or not having standing and if there is such a thing why and how and if you don't know the answer right away have you ever read anything on the topic and what would you recommend the only sense in which there is defendant standing does not apply here courts have recognized defendants defendants standing in two circumstances where defendants are appealing and thereby  jurisdiction of a new court and where defendants are asserting counter claims and thereby act out when they ask for a subpoena to be in court so i can't go in and you can't people can't just go in randomly and say i'd like to have a subpoena in force again so and so no of course not and a defendant can do that as part of an article three case or controversy once there are it is an existing case for contraband let's put that aside the question of intervention how can the defendant not have standing me i'm somebody susan me so they're dragging me into court i don't want to be there because i'm a defendant and then the court is going to turn around and say well you have to leave because you don't have standing possibly be most defendants would be happy to accept that in the anomaly that you're pointing out but then you would go on without the anomaly that you're pointing out is precisely why it doesn't make sense to ask the question whether defendants have standing once there is a case or controversy the judicial power extends to all of it that includes discovery request subpoena requests and whatever else by participants in that case or controversy to get back to justice briar's question the reason that standing as an inquiry does not work in particular for defendant intervenors is that there are two contingencies before a defendant intervener can even be said to be injured the first is that the district court has to in a way that the defendant intervener doesn't want and the second is that then the defendant intervene or has to actually be harmed by that as opposed to the defendant intervene or simply having an interest that may as a practical matter that brings me back to my original question on a defendant can go and get subpoenas and so forth but if he has a counter claim that's different and he has to show standing so why don't we apply the same standard to the intervenors the intervenors have to be like defendants in respect to intervening on the song on either side they can get subpoenas it's true but if they want something that somebody else doesn't want in this case then they have to ha i think this goes to the question of what is the standard for having standing in others what is it that you might want to do differently that would require you to have standing and the only thing that you might want to do differently that would require standing i a different claim or seeking a different form of relief not making a different argument even potentially injecting a constitutional argument the way a mickey do and not seeking discovery or subpoenas because those are not a claim or form of relief with which article three is concerned on that score why isn't that exactly the case we have here the plaintiffs in this case by way of relief seek some money damages for the taking that's its complaint page one twenty  two two an appendix your client page one sixty two wants damages for itself something that the plaintiff could not have had standing to obtain for your client why isn't that a form of additional relief where an interv mutual issue preclusion for example seems to me like that is a different form of relief isn't it just as course it is the way in which this case has been litigated and trial counsel conceded this in the second circuit represented to you here today we are not we are at this point seeking relief here is relief to recover for sherman we will at a later date need to figure out how we'll get that money from him and we would either need to potentially settle that claim or have standing to bring our own claim in federal court or in state court to get the money from him but the reason this claiming the relief sought in your complaint we are disclaiming is there any relief you're seeking at this stage well the relief that we are seeking is to maximize sherman's recovery because we have a stake in that recovery and it's a state that rule twenty four eight to protect us and gives us an ability to it and to intervene to would you agree though that if an intervener did seek relief in its own name that that would be relief beyond that which the plaintiff would be entitled to provide i mean after all planet normally doesn't have standing to seek a judgment someone else is making so would you agree in the normal case that we have a problem here if by the normal case you mean a situation where an intervener comes in and ask for either additional money or money to be paid separately or just a judgment and it's favor so whether it's a judgment in its favor i think it depends really on the scope of the judgment this court has repeatedly affirmed judgments in favor of plaintiffs without inquiring into their standing once it had assured itself that at least one point if in the case had standing suggest the issuance of a judgment is would be an inconsistent standard with this court now under the petitioners theory of this case every exercise of judicial power i'm sorry for interrupting calls with you just as my question be grateful if the plaintiff seeks a judgment in its own way can't seek it for an interview or agree intervener then seeks a judgment in its name generally speaking that's asking for relief beyond that which the plaintiff has standing itself to provide right now not necessarily and not the way this court has considered the clinton versus new york basher versus signer these are all cases where the court has expressly said we satisfy ourselves of the jurisdiction of the standing of one plaintiff and need not inquire further i don't know i know that but i mean that's that those cases are distinct in that the court saying we need not inquire further because those are two separate parties but they're all seeking the same belief it may be necessary at some point for the court to inquire further if it determines that the party is seeking to exercise authority beyond article three sure you don't have to decide cases that might never come up or issues that might never come up and i don't see how that helps you know and we agree that if in fact an intervener if we ourselves came in at a later date filed an amended pleading and said now we are seeking additional damages in our own name that at that point in article three inquiry would be required but the point is that so long as we are not seeking a separate coiner separate relief no inquiry into standing is required and that is what this case this court's case of support well noted in the question that comes upon if you were then exercising the authority to issue subpoenas with respect to other parties or exercising the authority of the court in a way that expands beyond what the particular plaintiff was seeking you are but you are not exercising the authority of the court in a way that's relevant to article three because you're not seeking a separate claim or a separate form of relief what article three is called that just seems to me to be circular i guess i was looking for a reason why that is so that the reason i don't think it's circular is the purpose of article three is not to micromanage the conduct of litigation and  from interjecting themselves into a controversy in the first that's the argument argument you're brief you focus on case or controversy there has to be a case or controversy but we have said repeatedly that in article three standing is an element of the case or controversy requirement it's so i don't know how you can put article three standing to one side while saying we're it's ok because we still have a case or controversy article three standing is an element of a case or controversy requirement or an interpretation of the case or controversy requirement but that the requirement that this court has imposed in order to have standing is in it an interest that is injured imminently or concretely has been injured traceability and redress ability all with respect to a particular claim and a form of relief not with respect to things that happen along the way in litigation you know with respect to a particular party you don't you don't just ask is there an injury you said has the plaintiff been injured off again goes back to the purposes of article three which are not to police every single exercise of judicial power when an amicus comes into court it potentially introduces a new issue a new constitutional question in this case the government has introduced rule twenty four issue that that we've responded to each of those is a form of asking the court to use its power power to resolve the case a certain way but that is what we're talking about mandatory intervention district intervention the court must permit anyone to intervene and then there's this requirement of there be a practical interest and so for it seems to me you're going to have to in order just to protect the courts against particularly you're going to have to make an inquiry looks very much like standard anyway so i think this goes to a key premise of the petitioners argument that i want to make sure to clarify the petitioner is arguing that once an intervener comes in as an intervener of right as of right there can essentially be no limits on what that intervener can do and that's simply not true the advisory committee notes make clear that restrictions can be placed on interveners as of right we cite numerous cases in our brief in which courts have recognized that they can limit the discovery of interveners as of right certainly they can limit them from asserting claims in additional forms of relief and in fact courts are used to doing this in multi party litigation all the time including preventing multiple plaintiffs and multiple interveners from seeking any unilateral discovery at all so this notion that once an intervener is allowed in that the intervenor will simply be able to do whatever it wants and take the judicial power in different directions this is why i started out by saying this is the constitutional ization of every intervention motion is a solution in search of a problem this is simply not a problem in the real world it exactly justice ginsburg that the petitioners contrary theory here that article three polices every action of every course is contrary to a number of settled principles one i mentioned is contrary to the one point of rule which this court has applied repeatedly if it were not possible for a court to issue a judgment even in favor of a point if without standing then this court has been wrong for decades to be doing exactly that second of all and i think this goes back to justice briar's point earlier it would require constructing an entirely new defendant intervener standing doctrine that whatever it is it is not standing as we think of it a defendant intervener first of all will be injured only if there is a judgment that goes a certain way and even then will not necessarily actually be harmed by the judgment depending on whether his or her interest actually are impaired that the standard for rule twenty four intervention is simply whether the the interest may as a practical matter be impaired that is government says they have to show the site and intervene or on the point of side doesn't have to show anything unless they want something other than the rule i mean of the most they want something that the plaintiffs doesn't want  the government saying interpret the rule this way and you object to that because because rule twenty four and article three serve different purposes as reflected in rule twenty four as distinct language with respect to the purposes article three is about ensuring that federal courts do not intervene in controversies absent a live dispute rule twenty four ensures that once there is a live dispute once there is a case or controversy parties whose interests may be affected can participate in order to protect their interests and in order to avoid additional litigation later on so these are these are different purposes and they're reflected in the language of rule twenty four which does not speak in terms of standing the key point is that rule twenty four allows an intervener to intervene if the interveners interest may as a practical matter be impaired or impede it that is different than the stringent requirements for standing which require an actual or imminent injury not just a practical matter traceability under addressability likewise do not track on to the language of rule twenty four for article three standing purposes you need to have an injury that is traceable to the defendant's conduct for rule twenty four it simply needs to be related to the subject matter of the litigation likewise with redress ability for article three purposes there has to be an ability by a court to do correctly redress the injury and thereby and bind the defendant to a legal judgment for purposes of rule twenty four again it's not that the nexus is not is different than that it's simply whether the intervenor might potentially be aided in its ability to protect his interest these are all looser standards than article three congress has a mess and enacted rule twenty four in one thousand nine hundred sixty six but as amended it four times since then including as recently as two thousand and seven so there's been ample opportunity for congress the advisory committee this court reviewing the rule to take account of modern standing doctrine yet the language of rule twenty four as a has been allowed to stand using very different terms than than the standing equerry and so that their lips assume for the sake of the they were saying you don't have the right to have a judgment in your name would that holding have been wrong absent your current concession that  page fifty four of our brief and this is just a quote from from the appellate lawyer in the second circuit there is quote exactly one fund and the town doesn't have to do anything other than turn over the fund and that's why the second circuit correctly found in this is petition appendix nine a that would that the rope quote asserts the same legal theories and seeks the same relief i've asked a different hypothetical i don't know that the court below understood your claim that you had with this be the same case if we hadn't it would be a different case but i think that what would happen if it were a different case if it were a different case and we were asking for just for money in our own name i think an article three standing relief different from someone with a case of controversy i would put it slightly differently which is whether or not there needs to be a standing inquiry depends on whether the intervenor is seeking relief or asserting provided food consistent with their religious beliefs one book brings a cloud he wants relief as to him because that's what he can secretly for right then we have eighty join him can they join him so long as they simply said we want him to get his meal or if they seek meals in their own name a judgment running as to them they have to show standing at that stage i think it depends on what relief the initial plaintiff is seeking if he is seeking a declaratory judgment or an injunction invalidating the prison's entire meal program then i think they can join if he is seeking an injunction saying he individual is entitle to a particular type of food and they would like that judgment to extend to them they need at that point standing because they're asking the defendant to do something different not only to provide him with particular food but also to provide it to them whereas otherwise the defendant would not be free to do that so i think it requires a careful pars at that at the end either on the papers or at the time which is essentially seeking relief only in his own name and as applied challenge for him as if it were as applied challenge then an additional plaintiff would need to show standing because the question again is what is the court ordering the defendant to do that's the touchstone for the relief and if an additional plaintiff is asking for different relief that requires standing thank you counsel mr kok you know four minutes thank you mr chief justice three point let you take the same deposition courts do that all the time sure they can do that if they can say but but at the point where they are restricting a full party like an intervenor from doing anything independently they're no longer need to intervene or at that point justice kennedy they already permissive intervene or at best or their enemy they're not doing anything and that gets to i think a fundamental point just underlined i don't want to take up your time but it does seem to me that the district courts have very substantial control over what mandatory they're coming in and saying we're going to do everything exactly the same way either because the court has imposed that restriction on them or otherwise they aren't at that point to need to intervene or in that gives rise to us justice kennedy my friend on the other side what are we giving up when do we ever  need these kinds of interventions and he gave you two answers neither of which dealt with the fact that a median permissive intervention provide for that participation his first answer was trip of each privileges case in which that union member had article three standing so you know that would have that wouldn't be screened out by a rule anyway the second read thing he gave you was clapper and a long thing about our roommate that you know might want to have a grievance here that to me boomerangs that shows exactly what our point is he wants them to to intervenors to raise stuff that parties legitimately can't raise because of article three standing and the only people support he can after that there's no support in the constitution the only support is page thirty of his brief where he's admitting that's what he wants intervenors to do and just prior t hat is what intervenors are doing right now at the national county's brief explains that ideological intervenors are coming in now concerned bystanders like the sierra club or club for growth to doesn't matter ideologically but it's just the point is that that's happening right now because of a two intervention status and that's why you need some sort of upfront restriction and a threshold inquiry and then this is my last point which is it gets to the chief question about why would you need to have a threshold inquiry and i think the before this court that by the way is not the disclaimer before the second circuit the disclaim for the second circuit is we want the same pot of money but we still want a court order for ourselves and that is an indication of judicial power that's exactly what a two intervenors do all the