# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 17 85

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

N o r t h D a k o t a , e x r e l

. , W a

y n e S t e n e h j e m , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l f

o r t h e S t a t e o f N o r t h D a k o t a ,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e ,

v.

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee ,

B a d l a n d s C o n s e r

v a t i o n A l l i a n c e ; S i e r r a C l u b ; N a t i o n a l P a r k s C o n s e r v a t i o n A s s o c i a

t i o n ,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Mov an ts - App el la nt

s.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Bi ll in gs Co un ty, Nor th Dako ta ; Go ld en Vall ey Co un ty, Nor th Dako ta ; M cKen zi e Co un ty, Nor th Dako ta ; Sl op e Co un ty, Nor th Dako ta

,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll ees
,

v.

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee ,

B a d l a n d s C o n s e r

v a t i o n A l l i a n c e ; S i e r r a C l u b ; N a t i o n a l P a r k s C o n s e r v a t i o n A s s o c i a

t i o n ,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Mov an ts - App el la nt

s.

__ __ __ __ __ __App eal fro m Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta - Bi sm arck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 6, 2 01 4
Fil ed : J un e 1 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Thre e no np ro fit en vi ro nm en ta l gr ou ps m ov ed to in te rv en e in a qu ie t ti tl e act io n

co nc ern in g own ers hi p of po rti on s of th e Dak ot a Prai rie Gras sl a nd s. The di st ric t

co ur t de ni ed th ei r m ot io n, an d th e gr ou ps ap pe al

. W e co nc lu de th at th e gr ou ps were 1

no t en ti tl ed to in te rv en e as of rig ht

, an d th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n

in de nyin g p erm is si ve in te rv en ti on

.

I.

Fo ur Nor th Dak ot a co un ti es —Bi ll in gs Co un ty, Gol de n Vall ey Co un ty,

McKe nz ie Co un ty, an d Sl op e Co un ty— s u e d t he Uni te d St at es in th e di st ric t co ur t

un de r th e Qui et Tit le Act of 19 72

, 28 U.S.C. § 24 09 a. The co un ti es so ug ht to qu ie t

ti tl e to al le ge d rig ht s- of

-way al on g se ct io n li ne s th at ru n th ro ug ho ut la nd s own ed by

th e Uni te d S ta te s i n No rth Dako ta

. The la nd s are l oc at ed wit hi n t he Dako ta Prai rie

Gras sl an ds an d are ad m in is te red a n d man ag ed by t he Uni te d St at es Fo res t Serv ic e.

The Co un ti es al le ge th at se ct io n li ne s in Nor th Dak ot a, wit h a few e x c e p t i on s, are

The Hon or ab le Dan ie l L. Hov la nd

, Unite d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of Nort h Dak ot a.

-2

-s u b

je c t to a pu bl ic eas em en t th at pr ov id es a rig ht -o f-way fo r pu bl ic tra ve l wit h i n

th irt y- t h r e e f

e e t on ei th er si de of th e se ct io n li ne s. The Uni te d St at es do es no t

reco gn iz e th e s e rig ht s- of -way

. The St at e of Nor th Dak ot a fil ed a se pa rat e la wsu it

se ek in g t he same reli ef, an d t he di st ric t co ur t co ns ol id at ed th e act io ns

.

Eig ht m on th s aft er th e act io n co m m en ced

, th ree no np ro fit en vi ro nmen ta l

or ga ni zat io ns —Ba dl an ds Co n se rv at io n All ia nc e, Si erra Cl ub

, an d Nati on al Park s

Co ns erv at io n Ass oc ia ti on (co ll ec t iv el y , “ th e Co ns erv at io n Gro up s” )—m ov ed to

in te rv en e as de fen da nt s as of rig ht un de r Ru le 24 (a) o f t h e F e d e ral Ru le s of Ci vi l

Pro ced ur e. Alt ern at iv el y , th ey so ug ht pe rm is si ve in te rv en ti on un de r Ru le 24 (b ). The

Gro up s al le ge d th at th ey po ss es s im po rta nt aes th et ic

, recr eat io na l, an d en vi ro nm en ta l

in te res ts in pr es erv in g th e Gras sl an ds

. The Gro up s fil ed de cl arat io ns by th ree of th ei r

m em be rs de sc rib in g th ei r in te res ts in th e Gras sl an ds

, th ei r pl an s to us e th e Gras sl an ds

in th e fu tu re, an d t he ir p rio r ad vo cacy effo rts for th e p ro te ct io n o f th e Gras sl an ds

.

All pa rti es op po se d th e Co ns erv at io n Gro up s’ m ot io n to in te rv en e as of rig ht

,

an d th e St at e an d Co un ty pl a i n t iff s op po se d pe rm is si ve in te rv en ti on

. The di st ric t

co ur t d en ie d th e m ot io n to in te rv en e as of rig ht on sev eral gro un ds : (1 ) th e Gro up s

fai le d to sh ow in

jury in -fac t an d th us la ck ed Arti cl e III st an di ng ; (2 ) th e Gro up s fai le d

to es ta bl is h a reco gn iz ed in te res t in th e su bjec t m at te r of th e la wsu it ; an d (3 ) th e

U n i te d St at es ad eq ua te ly rep res en te d an y le ga ll y pr ot ect ab le in te res t of th e Gro up s

in th e la wsu it

. The co ur t al so de ni ed th e al te rn a t i v e r e q ue st fo r pe rm is si ve

in te rv en ti on

.

The Co ns erv at io n Gro up s ap pe al

, arg ui ng th a t th ey sa ti sf y al l of th e

req ui rem en ts fo r Arti cl e III st an di ng an d in te rv en ti on as of rig ht , a nd al te rn at i v e l y , th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n i n d e n yin g th ei r m ot io n fo r pe rm is si ve

in te rv en ti on

. We rev ie w th e de ni al of a m ot io n to in te rv en e as of rig ht de no vo

. Uni te d S ta te s v. Un io n El ec. Co

. , 64 F.3d 11 52 , 11 58 (8t h C ir. 1 99 5)

.

-3

-II.

In th is ci rcu it , p ro sp ect iv e in te rv en or s m us t sa ti sf y bo th th e req ui remen ts of

Ru le 24 (a) an d Arti cl e III st an di ng to i n t e r v e n e a s of rig ht

. Mau so lf v. Bab bi tt

, 85

F.3 d 12 95

, 13 00 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ). Thi s co ur t ha s co nc lu de d th at an Arti cl e III cas e or

co nt ro ve rs y joi ne d by an in te rv en o r w h o l a c ks st an di ng ceas es to be an Arti cl e III

cas e or co nt ro ve rs y

. Id

. Bu t be cau se th ere is an ex is ti ng cas e or co nt ro ve rs y be twee n

th e pa rti es t o t h e un de rlyin g act io n, we m ay co ns id er fir st whe th er a wou ld -b e

in te rv en or sa ti sf

ie s Ru le 24 (a). If in te rv en ti on was pr op erl y de ni ed ba se d on Ru le 24

, th en th e cas e or co nt ro ve rs y was no t de st ro y ed

, an d it is un n e c e ss ary to de te rm in e

whe th er th e pu ta ti ve in te rv en or al so sa ti sf ie s Arti cl e III st an di ng req ui rem en ts

. E.g.

, St an da rd Hea ti ng & Air Co nd it io ni ng Co

. v. Ci ty of Min ne ap ol is

, 13 7 F.3 d 56 7, 57 1-

73 (8t h C ir. 1 99 8)

.

A pa rty is en ti tl ed to in te rv en ti on un de r Ru le 24 (a) whe n it ha s m ad e a ti m el y

ap pl ic at io n an d “ cl ai m s an in te res t rel at in g to th e pr op ert y or t ran sa ct io n t ha t i s t he

su bjec t of th e act io n, an d is so si tu at ed th at di sp os in g of th e act io n m ay as a pr act ic al

m at te r im pa ir or im

pe de th e m ov an t’s ab il it y to pr ot e c t it s in te res t, un le ss ex is ti ng

p a r t i e s a de qu at el y rep res en t th at in te res t.” Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 24 (a). W e ha v e

pa rap hr as ed th e ru le to sa y th at a pu ta ti ve in te rv en or m us t es ta bl is h th at it : “ (1 ) ha [s ]

a reco gn iz ed in te res t in th e su bjec t m at te r of th e li ti ga ti on th at (2 ) m ig ht be im pa ire d
by t h e di sp os it io n of th e cas e an d th at (3 ) wil l no t be ad eq ua te ly pr ot ect ed by th e

ex is ti ng pa rti es .” Mau so lf

, 85 F.3 d at 12 99

. Eve n as su m in g fo r th e sa ke of arg um en t

th at th e Gro up s co ul d m eet th e fir st two cri te ria , we co nc lu de th at th e Gro up s ha ve

fai le d to sh ow th at th e Uni te d St at es do es no t adeq ua te ly rep res en t th ei r in te res ts in

th is qu ie t t it le li ti ga ti on

.

A pu ta ti ve in t e r v e n o r un de r Ru le 24 (a) m us t sh ow th at no ne of th e pa rti es

ad eq ua te ly rep r e s e n t s it s in te res ts

. Alt ho ug h th e bu rd en of sh owi ng in ad eq ua te

rep res en ta ti on us ua ll y is m in im al

, “ whe n on e of th e pa rti es is an arm or ag en cy of th e

-4

-go ve rn m en t, an d th e cas e co nc ern s a m at te r of so ve r e i g n i n te res t, th e ba r is rai se d,

be cau se in su ch cas es th e go ve rn m en t is pr es um ed to rep res en t th e in te res ts of al l it s

ci ti zen s.” Mau so lf

, 85 F.3 d at 13 03 (em

ph as is an d in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. The go ve rn m en t rep res en ts th e in te res ts of a m ov an t “ to th e ex t e n t h i s i nt eres ts

co in ci de wit h t he pu bl ic in te res t.” Ch ig lo v. Ci ty of Pres to n , 10 4 F .3d 18 5, 1 87 -8 8
(8 th Ci r. 19 97 ). W he re th e go ve rn m en t wou ld be “ sh irk in g it s du ty” to ad va nc e th e

“ na rro wer i nt eres t” of a pr os pe ct iv e in te rv en or “ at th e ex pe ns e o f it s re pr es en ta ti on

of th e ge ne ral pu bl ic in te res t,” th en no pr es um pt io n of ad e q u a t e rep res en ta ti on

ap pl ie s. Mil le La cs Ban d of Ch ip pe wa In di an s v. Min ne so ta

, 98 9 F.2 d 99 4, 10 00 (8 th

Ci r. 19 93 ) (q uo ti ng Dimo nd v. Dis tr ic t of Co lu mbi a , 79 2 F.2 d 17 9, 19 3 (D.C. Ci r.

19 86 )).

The Uni te d St at es is a de fen da nt in th is act io n, bu t th e Gro up s arg ue th at th e

pr es um pt io n of ad eq ua te rep res en ta ti o n sh ou ld no t at ta ch be cau se th ey face a

na rro wer an d m or e pe rs on al ha rm th an th e Uni te d St at es

. The y al le ge t h a t t h ei r

en vi ro nm en ta l an d aes th et ic in te res ts in th e la nd co ul d b e im pa ire d b y th e ou tc om e

of th is li ti ga ti on , whe reas th e Uni te d St at es st an ds to lo se o n ly it s own own ers hi p

in te res t i n t he Gras sl an ds

.

In d e t e r mi ni ng whe th er to pr es um e ad eq ua cy of rep res en ta ti on by th e

so ve rei gn , it is im

po rta nt t o f

o c u s on wha t th e cas e is ab ou t. The di sp ut es in th is

la wsu it co nc ern ti tl e to cert a i n se ct io n li ne s, ro ad s, rig ht s- of -way , eas em en ts

, an d
rig ht s- of

- e n t r y i n Nor th Dak ot a. The Co un ti es cl ai m cert ai n rig ht s, an d th e Uni te d

St at es de ni es th em . As th e d is tri ct co ur t co rrec tl y ex pl ai ne d:

[T]his is a qu ie t ti tl e act io n pr es en ti ng ba si c qu es ti on s of co m pe ti ng ti tl e in te res ts

. The be st us e of pu bl ic la nd s is no t at is su e. Thi s la wsu it is no t ab ou t pa st or fu tu re la nd m an ag em en t de ci si on s whe re th e Uni te d St at es wil l ha ve to ba la nc e va rie d in te res ts

, in cl ud in g co ns erv at io n, in m ak in g la nd m an ag em en t d eci si on s.

-5

-In de fen di ng ti tl e in te res ts in pu bl ic la nd s, th e Uni te d St at es as so ve rei gn is

pr es um ed to rep res en t ad eq ua te ly the in te res ts of it s cit iz en s. Alth ou gh th e Gro up s

m ay ha ve di f

f eren t reas on s th an th e go ve rn m en t fo r se ek in g to de feat th e cl ai m s of

th e Co un ti es (en vi ro nm en ta l i nt eres ts rat he r th an own ers hi p i nt eres ts ), th e in te res ts

of th e Gro up s an d th e Uni te d St at es are al ig ne d. Th e g ov ern m en t’s pu rs ui t of th e

pu bl ic in te res t in de fen di ng it s ti tl e rig ht s en co m pa ss es th e pa ral le l in te re s ts of th e

Gro up s in op po si ng th e qu ie t ti tl e act io n br ou gh t by th e Co un ti es

. Eve n as to th e

su pp os ed ly na rro wer in te res ts ur ge d by th e Gro up s, m or eo ve r, th is co ur t in Mau so lf

ru le d th at an as so ci at io n’s “ co ns erv at io n in te res ts ar e co nc ern s th at th e Gov ern m en t,

as pa re ns pa tr ia e , is ch arg ed wit h pr ot ect in g, an d t ha t t he pre su m pt io n o f ad eq ua te

rep res en ta ti on th e r e f

o r e ap pl ie s” whe n a wou ld -b e in te rv en or se ek s to ad va nc e

en vi ro nm en ta l an d a es th et ic in te res ts . 85 F.3d at 1 30 3.

The Gro up s co nt en d th at ev en if th e pr es um pt io n of ad eq u a t e rep res en ta ti on

ap pl ie s , t h e y h a v e su cces sf ul ly reb ut te d it

. The y ci te a hi st or y of co nf li ct wit h th e

Uni te d St at es ov er m an ag em en t of th e Gras sl an ds

. The go ve rn m en t, th ey sa y ,

su pp or ts m

ul ti pl e us es for

th e la nd , whi le th e Gro up s ad vo cat e ex cl us iv el y for us es

th at are rel at ed to co ns erv at io n an d pr ot ect io n of th e la nd

. The Gro up s al so po in t to

th e go ve rn m en t’s de ci si on to se tt le a pr ev i o us la wsu it co nc ern in g it s pa st la nd

m an ag em en t de ci si on s. The se tt le m en t, th ey as se rt, sh ows th at th e Uni te d St at es m ay

be sa ti sf ie d wit h ou tc om es in th is cas e th at wou ld da m ag e th e Gro up s’ en vi ro nm en ta l

in te res ts in th e Gras sl an ds

.

The pr es um

pt io n of ad eq ua te rep res en ta ti on by th e Uni te d St at es c an be

ov erco m e on ly by “ a st ro ng sh owi ng of in ad eq ua te rep res en ta ti on .” Li tt le Roc k Sc h.

Dis t. v. N. Li tt le Roc k Sc h. Dis t.

, 37 8 F.3 d 77 4, 78 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). The Gro up s m ay

reb ut t he pr es um

pt io n by “ sh owi ng th at th e pa re ns pa tr ia e ha s co m m it te d

m i sf eas an ce or no nf

eas an ce in pr ot ect in g th e pu bl ic .” Ch ig lo

, 10 4 F.3 d at 18 8.

Mau so lf

, fo r ex am

pl e, in vo lv ed a l a wsu it ov er th e va li di ty of sn owm ob il in g

res tri ct io ns in a na ti on al pa rk

. Thi s co ur t he ld th at th e pr es um pt io n was reb ut te d by

-6

-e v i d e n c e t ha t th e Uni te d St at es pr ev io us ly ha d “ waiv ed an d fai le d to en fo rce”

reg ul at io ns ag ai ns t sn owm ob il e us e, an d ha d br each ed a st at ut or y ob li ga ti on to m ak e

a wil de rn es s reco m

m en da ti on fo r t h e p ark

. 85 F.3 d at 13 03

. “ Abs en t th is so rt of

cl ear de rel ic ti on of du ty, ho wev er, th e pr op os ed in te rv en or can no t reb ut th e

pr e s u mp t i on of rep res en ta ti on by m erel y di sa gr eei ng wit h th e li ti ga ti on st rat eg y or

ob jecti ve s o f th e p art y

rep res en ti ng hi m .” Ch ig lo , 10 4 F .3d at 1 88

.

The Gro up s ha ve no t ov erco m e th e pr es um pt io n of ad eq ua te re p r e s e n ta ti on

. Thi s la wsu it co nc ern s a cl ai m to qu ie t ti tl e to al le ge d rig ht s- of -way on th e Gras sl an ds ;

it do e s n ot co nc ern ad m in is tra ti ve de ci si on s ab ou t ho w th e Gras sl an ds sh ou ld be

m an ag ed or us ed

. The Gro up s’ arg um en t ab ou t it s hi st or y of la nd us e di sp ut es wit h

t h e U n it ed St at es is th eref or e be si de th e po in t. Tha t th e Uni te d St at es se t t l e d a

la wsu it rel at ed to us e of th e Gras sl an ds in a way th at di sp le as es th e Gro up s do es no t

su gg es t th at th e go ve rn m en t wil l fai l to de fen d i t s ow ne rs hi p in te re st in th e la nd in

th e fu tu re. The re i s n o e vi de nc e to sh ow th at th e Uni te d Stat es ha s fa il ed to de fen d

it s ti tl e vi go ro us ly, an d no th in g in th e reco rd su gg es ts th at th e go ve rn m en t ha s be en

le ss th an vi gi la nt in it s d efen se of t he qu ie t t it le act io n t hu s fa r.

W e th eref or e co nc lu de th at th e in te res t of th e Uni te d St at es in m ai nt ai ni ng ti tl e

to th e Gras sl an ds su bs um es th e in te res t of th e Gro up s in pr es erv in g fed eral pr ot ect io n

of th os e la nd s. The pr es um pt io n of ad eq ua te rep res en ta ti on ap pl ie s, an d th e Gro up s

ha ve no t reb ut te d th e pa re ns pa tr ia e pr es um pt io n. The di st ric t co ur t th us di d no t err

in de nyin g t he Grou ps ’ m ot io n t o i nt erv en e as of r ig ht un de r Ru le 24 (a).

The di st ric t co ur t al so de ni ed pe rm is si ve in te rv en ti on un de r Ru le 24 (b ), ci ti ng

th e Gro up s’ la ck of Arti cl e III st an di ng , th ei r la ck of a le ga ll y -p ro te ct ed in te res t in th e

li ti ga ti on , and th e p ot en ti al for de la y cau se d b y th e in tro du ct io n of an ci ll ary is su es

. A de ci si on on t h is qu es ti on is “ who ll y di sc ret io na ry ,” an d th e “ pr in ci pa l

co ns id erat io n” is “ whe th er th e pr op os ed in te rv en tion w oul d undu ly de la y or pr ejud ic e

th e ad jud ic at io n of th e pa rti es ’ rig ht s.” S.D. ex re l Bar ne tt v. U.S. Dep ’t of In te ri or ,

-7

-31 7 F.3 d 78 3, 78 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ). Hav in g co nc lu de d th at th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y

de ni ed in te rv en ti on as of rig ht

, an d se ei ng no reas on to se co nd -g ue ss th e di st ric t

co ur t’s co nc ern ab ou t un du e de la y th at co ul d ari se fro m th e Gro up s “ in jecti ng is su es

un rel at ed to ti tl e in to th is qu ie t t it le act io n,” we di sc ern no ab us e o f di sc ret io n.

The ord er o f th e d is tri ct co ur t d en y in g i nt erv en ti on is affi rm ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-8

-