Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02339/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02339-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 Defendants have not filed a response to applicant’s

motion to intervene.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

THE REV. DR. MICHAEL A.

NEWDOW, IN PRO PER, 

Plaintiff,

NO. CIV. S-05-2339 FCD PAN

v.

THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 

Defendants.

__________________________/

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on a motion to

intervene filed by applicant Pacific Justice Institute (“PJI” or

“applicant”). Plaintiff, the Rev. Dr. Michael A. Newdow,

(“plaintiff”) does not oppose applicant’s intervention.1 For the

Case 2:05-cv-02339-FCD-PAN Document 15 Filed 01/06/06 Page 1 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 Because oral argument will not be of material 

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

See E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

3 Facts relating to the instant motion are drawn from

plaintiff’s complaint and applicant’s Motion to Intervene. These

facts are provided for background purposes only.

2

reason’s set forth below,2 applicant’s motion to intervene as a

defendant is GRANTED. 

BACKGROUND3

On November 18, 2005, plaintiff filed a complaint in this

court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the

use of the phrase “In God We Trust” as the national motto that is

also printed on United States currency. (Compl., filed Nov. 18

2005). The complaint names as defendants the Congress of the

United States of America, Peter Lefevre as Law Revision Counsel,

the United States of America, John William Snow as Secretary of

the Treasury, Henrietta Holsman Fore as Director of the United

States Mint, and Thomas A. Ferguson as Director of the Bureau of

Engraving and Printing. (Id.) On November 29, 2005, applicant

PJI filed a motion to intervene as a defendant in the action. 

(Applicant’s Mot. to Intervene, filed Nov. 29, 2005 (“Mot. to

Intervene”)).

PJI is a Sacramento-based non-profit legal organization

dedicated to the preservation of religious and civil liberties. 

(Aff. of Brad. W. Dycus in Supp. of Application Mot. to Intervene

(“Dycus Aff.”), filed Nov. 29, 2005, ¶ 2). PJI has represented

numerous individuals, houses of worship, and religious

organizations which have been treated unjustly due to their

religious preferences. (Id. ¶ 3). PJI’s mission and function is

to represent the interests of people of faith. (Id. ¶ 11). PJI

Case 2:05-cv-02339-FCD-PAN Document 15 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4 All further references to the Rules are to the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise noted. 

5 Rule 24(a)(2) provides: “Upon timely application anyone

shall be permitted to intervene in an action . . . when the

applicant claims an interest relating to the property or

transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant

is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a

practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to

protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is

adequately represented by existing parties.”

3

seeks to intervene as a defendant in this matter because it

believes that plaintiff’s lawsuit “would seriously undermine

Pacific Justice Institute’s organizational mission to protect

religious liberty, including public expression of religious

heritage.” (Id. ¶ 17).

PJI brings this motion for intervention as of right or for

permissive intervention. In the alternative, PJI requests that

it be granted amicus status in the pending litigation. 

STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 244 provides two grounds for 

intervention in federal court: intervention as of right and

permissive intervention. 

Rule 24(a) governs applications for intervention as of

right.5 In the absence of a statute conferring an unconditional

right to intervene, the applicant must demonstrate that: (1) the

application is timely; (2) the applicant has an interest in the

subject matter of the litigation; (3) absent intervention,

applicant’s interest will be impaired; and (4) the existing

parties inadequately represent the applicant’s interests. League

of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302

(9th Cir. 1997). The focus of the court’s inquiry should be the

Case 2:05-cv-02339-FCD-PAN Document 15 Filed 01/06/06 Page 3 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

effect on the applicant, not on other parties to the litigation.

See 6 William Moore’s Federal Practice 3d Ed. § 24.03(1)(c)

(2003). The rule is construed broadly in favor of the

applicants. Idaho Farm Bureau Fed’n v. Babbitt, 58 F.3d 1392,

1397 (9th Cir. 1995).

 Applicants also may seek permissive intervention under Rule

24(b), which provides:

“Upon timely application, anyone may be

permitted to intervene in an action . . . when

an applicant’s claim or defense and the main

action have a question of law or fact in common.

. . In exercising it discretion, the court shall

consider whether the intervention will unduly

delay or prejudice the adjudication of the

rights of the original parties.”

 

Unlike intervention as of right, permissive intervention focuses

on possible prejudice to the original parties to the litigation,

not the intervenor. See Moore’s Federal Practice 3d Ed. §

24.10(1)(2003). 

In reviewing a motion to intervene, the court generally

should accept as true the allegations and evidence submitted by

the applicant. Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v.

Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 819-820 (9th Cir. 2001). 

ANALYSIS

I. Intervention as of Right 

Plaintiff first asserts that it should be permitted to

intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

24(a). 

A. Timeliness

Timeliness is "the threshold requirement" for intervention

as of right. United States v. Oregon, 913 F.2d 576, 588 (9th

Case 2:05-cv-02339-FCD-PAN Document 15 Filed 01/06/06 Page 4 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Cir. 1990). If the court finds “that the motion to intervene was

not timely, [it] need not reach any of the remaining elements of

Rule 24.” Wilson, 131 F.3d at 1302 quoting United States v.

Washington, 86 F.3d 1499, 1503 (9th Cir. 1996). In determining

whether a motion is timely, the court considers: (1) the stage of

the proceedings; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the

reason for and length of the delay. United States ex rel.

McGough v. Covington Techs., 967 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1992). 

“[A]ny substantial delay weighs heavily against intervention.” 

Wilson, 131 F.3d at 1302. (citations omitted). 

Here, the action was filed on November 18, 2005, and the

motion to intervene was filed on November 29, 2005. This motion

was brought at the outset of litigation, prior to the filing of

any response by the named defendants and prior to the issuance of

a pretrial scheduling order. See Sierra Club v. U.S. E.P.A., 995

F.2d 1478, 1481 (9th Cir. 1993) (upholding trial court’s finding

that application was timely where filed before defendant had

filed its answer). There is no evidence that intervention by

applicant will prejudice any existing party. Accordingly, the

court finds that applicant’s motion to intervene was timely

filed.

B. Interest in the Subject Matter

In addition to filing a timely motion, applicant must show

that it has an interest in the subject matter of the litigation.

Sagebrush Rebellion, Inc. v. Watt, 713 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir.

1983). “A public interest group is entitled as a matter of right

to intervene in an action challenging the legality of a measure

it has supported.” Idaho Farm Bureau Fed’n, 58 F.3d at 1397

Case 2:05-cv-02339-FCD-PAN Document 15 Filed 01/06/06 Page 5 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

(citations ommitted) (upholding intervention by conservation

group that had participated in the listing of endangered species

in a suit alleging substantive and procedural violations of the

Endangered Species Act); Sagebrush Rebellion, 713 F.2d at 527.

Applicant’s mission is the preservation of religious

liberty, including public expressions of the nation’s religious

history and heritage. (Dacus Aff. ¶ 17; Mot. to Intervene at 4). 

Applicant has represented individuals, houses of worship, and

religious organizations which have been treated unjustly due to

their religious preferences. (Dacus Aff. ¶ 3). Applicant also

assists governmental entities which are attacked for public

acknowledgments of America’s religious heritage. (Id. ¶ 5). 

Applicant asserts that the interpretation of the Establishment

Clause and the constitutionality of the motto “In God We Trust”

in the present action will affect PJI’s mission and activities. 

Given the Ninth Circuit’s holding that Rule 24 should be

construed broadly in favor of the applicant, applicant has an

interest in the subject matter of the litigation. See Idaho Farm

Bureau Fed’n, 58 F.3d at 1397. 

C. Impairment of Applicant’s Interest

Applicant next must demonstrate that, absent intervention,

its interests in the litigation will be impaired. Id. Applicant

argues that the ability of PJI to defend expressions of religious

heritage will be severely hindered if the court declares the

government’s use of phrase “In God We Trust” unconstitutional. 

It is PJI’s position that the removal of the motto “from the

public square will have a serious, detrimental effect on

Case 2:05-cv-02339-FCD-PAN Document 15 Filed 01/06/06 Page 6 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

Americans’ awareness and appreciation” of the nation’s religious

heritage. (Dacus Aff. ¶ 14). 

The mission of PJI is to “defend [the] nation’s religious

heritage against overly-restrictive interpretations of the

Establishment Clause.” (Id. ¶ 7). It is also PJI’s mission and

function to represent the interests of people of faith. (Id. ¶

11). An adverse decision in this suit would impair PJI’s ability

to defend and promote American religious history and heritage. 

See Sagebrush Rebellion, 713 F.2d at 527 (finding that a

conservation group’s interest would be impaired because an

adverse decision would impair its mission of preserving birds and

their habitats). 

D. Adequacy of Representation

Finally, the applicant must demonstrate that the party on

whose side it seeks to intervene is not capable or willing to

make the intervenor’s arguments. See Idaho Farm Bureau Fed’n, 58

F.3d at 1398. “The burden of making this showing is minimal.” 

Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Lynch, 216 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1025

(N.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Sagebrush Rebellion, 713 F.2d at 528). 

Applicant may satisfy this burden by demonstrating that the

representation of their interests may be inadequate. Trbovich v.

United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528, 538 n.10 (1971). The Ninth

Circuit 

considers three factors in determining the adequacy of

representation: (1) whether the interest of a present

party is such that it will undoubtedly make all of a

proposed intervenor's arguments; (2) whether the

present party is capable and willing to make such

arguments; and (3) whether a proposed intervenor would

offer any necessary elements to the proceeding that

other parties would neglect.

Case 2:05-cv-02339-FCD-PAN Document 15 Filed 01/06/06 Page 7 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6 While the court has found that applicant is entitled to

intervene as of right pursuant to Rule 24(a), the court considers

applicant’s motion in the alternative to permissively intervene

pursuant to Rule 24(b).

7 Timeliness also is a prerequisite for permissive

intervention. The court has found applicant’s motion timely. 

See Section I.A., above.

8

Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing

California v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 792 F.2d 775, 778 (9th

Cir. 1986)).

The defendants in the current action are all government and

political actors or bodies. As such, defendants have various

competing interests to consider in asserting arguments and

defenses in this claim. PJI is a non-profit organization with

the goal of preserving the public expression of American

religious history and heritage. (Mot. to Intervene at 7). As

such, PJI’s goals and interests differ from those of the

defendants. Thus, the defendants cannot necessarily be counted

on to make the same arguments as PJI. 

Accordingly, because the four factor analysis under Rule

24(a) has been satisfied, applicant is entitled to intervene as

of right.

II. Permissive Intervention6

Applicant also seeks permissive intervention pursuant to

Rule 24(b). In order to intervene permissively, applicant first

must identify a common question of law or fact with the original

matter.7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). Here, applicant argues that its

interest in protecting the public expression of religious

heritage will be impaired by an adverse judgment in this matter. 

Applicant also asserts that its activities include defending the

Case 2:05-cv-02339-FCD-PAN Document 15 Filed 01/06/06 Page 8 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

nation’s religious heritage “against overly-restrictive

interpretations of the Establishment Clause.” 

PJI seeks to interpose defenses that share common factual

and legal questions as those raised in the main action which

alleges violations of the Establishment Clause through the use of

the motto “In God We Trust.” (Mot. to Intervene at 9). 

Therefore, the court grants applicant’s motion for permissive

intervention. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, applicant’s motion to

intervene as of right pursuant to Rule 24(a) is GRANTED. In the

alternative, applicant’s motion for permissive intervention is

GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 6, 2006.

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02339-FCD-PAN Document 15 Filed 01/06/06 Page 9 of 9