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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 6- 34 37

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

Deri c Ja m es Lid de ll ; Ca ld well /NAACP,

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

ff s - Ap pe ll ees

,

Ken Ro ss , Jr.; LeDiv a Pi erce

,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l In te rv en or Pla in ti ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

,

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

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l In te rv en or Pla in ti ff - App el le e

,

v.

Sp ec ia l A dm ini str at ive Bo ar d o f t h e T r a n s i t i o n a l S c h o o l D i s t

r i c t o f t h e C i t y of St

. L oui s

,

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

an t - Ap pe ll ee

,

Sp eci al Sch oo l Di st ric t,

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

an t

,

St at e o f Mi ss ou ri,

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

an t - Ap pe ll ee

,

St . Lou is Co un ty; Cit y

Bo ard ; Li nd be rg h S ch oo l Di st ric t,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Defe nd an ts

,

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Co nf lu en ce Aca de m

y ; Ci ty of St . Lou is , Mis so ur i,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Amici on Beha lf

of 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 Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 20 , 20 17

Fi le d: Ju ly 5, 20 18

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re COLLOTON, BENTO N, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

I n A p r il 20 16

, se ve ral pa rti es to th e de cad es -o ld St

. Lou is pu bl ic sc ho o l

de se gr eg at io n li ti ga ti on m ov ed to en fo rce th e 19 99 Des eg reg a t io n Set tl em en t

Agr eem en t. The m ov in g pa rti es were pl ai nt iff s in th e or ig in al c a s e

, k no wn as th e

L i d d e l l a n d C a l d w e l l -N A A C P p l a i n t i f

f s (t h e P l a i n t i f f s ), a n d t h e S p e c i a l Adm in is tra ti ve

Bo ard of th e Tran si ti on al Sch oo l Dis t r i c t o f th e Ci ty of St

. Lou is (th e Sp eci al

Adm in is tra ti ve Bo ard ). T he Pl ai nti ff s an d the Sp eci al Adm in is tra ti ve Bo ard (to ge th er

th e Jo in t Mo va nt s) arg ue d t h a t th e St at e, th ro ug h th e Mi ss ou ri Dep art m en t of

Elem en ta ry a n d Seco nd ary Edu cat io n, was real lo cat in g cert ai n ta x pr oc eed s to St

.

Lou is ch art er sc ho ol s in vi ol at io n of th e Set tl em en t Agr eem en t. The Jo in t Mo va nt s

as ke d th e co ur t to or de r th e St at e to co m pl y wit h th e 19 99 Des eg reg at io n Set tl em en t

Agr eem en t by (1 ) di sc on ti nu in g th e pr act ic e of al lo cat in g th e ta x pr oc eed s in qu es ti on

to th e ch art er sc ho ol s, an d (2 ) rei m bu rs in g th e Sp eci al Adm in is tra ti ve Bo ard fo r pa st

wro ng fu l al lo cat io ns

.

-2

-O n M a y 3 1

, 2 0 1 6

, S t

. L o u i s c h a r te r sc h o o l p a

re n t s K e n R o s s

, J

r.

, a n d L e D i v a

P i e rc e m o v e d t o i n t e rv e n e a s p l a i n t i f f s a s o f ri g h t u

n d e r F e d e ra l R

u l e o f C i v i l P ro c e d

u re

2 4 (a )( 2 ). A l t e rn a

t i v e l y

, t h e c h a rt e r s c h o o l p a

re n t s s o u g h t p e rm

i s s i v e i n t e rv e n t i o n u

n d e r

R u l e 2 4 (b ). T h e c h a

rt e r s c h o o l p a

re n t s a rg u e t h a t t h e p e n d i n g m o t i o n t o e n f

o rc e s e e k s

to d e c re a s e f

u n d i n g f o r c h a rt e r s c h o o l s a

n d t h e re b y t h re a t e n s t h e i r i n t e re st i n

“ e d u c a t i o n a l f u n d i n g a n d e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o rt

u n i t i e s ” f o r t h e i r c h i l d re n

. Ro ss an d Pi erce

se ek to in te rv en e o n b eh al f of th em se lv es an d “ al l o th ers si m il arl y si tu at ed .”

T h e d i s t ri c t c o u rt d e n i e d t h e c h a rt e r p a re n t s ’ m o t i o n t o i n

t e rv e n e o n t

h e g ro u n d s

t h a t t h e p a re n t s l a c k e d a

n i n j u ry i n f a c t a s re q u i re d t o e s t a

b l i s h s t a n d i n g t o i n t e rv e n e

. W e

d i s a g re e a n d c o n c l u d e t

h a t t h e c h a rt e r p a re n t s h a v e s t a n d i n g

. W e t

h e re f o re re v e rs e a

n d

re m a n d f o r t h e d i s t ri c t c o u rt t o d e t e rm

i n e i n t h e f i rs t i n s t a n c e w h e t h e r t h e c h a rt e r p a re n t s

m e e t t h e re q u i re m e n t s u

n d e r R u l e 24 fo r int er

v e n t i o n a s o f ri g h t o r f

o r p e rm i s s i v e

i n t e rv e n t i o n

.

I.

The ch art er pa ren ts se ek to in te rv en e a s p l a in ti ffs in li ti ga ti on th at ha s be en

on go in g si nc e 19 72

. To pr o v i d e c on te xt

, we be gi n wit h a br ie f hi st or y of th is

li ti ga ti on an d t he leg is la ti ve ba ck dr op

.

In 19 72

, Mi nn ie Lid de ll

, on be ha lf of Afri can Am eri can sc ho ol ch il dr en in St

.

Lou is an d th ei r pa ren ts

, fil ed su it ag ai ns t th e St

. Lou is Bo ard of Edu cat io n (th e Ci ty

Bo ard ). Lid de ll al le ge d t h a t t h e C i t y Bo ard an d it s ad m in is tra to rs ha d pe rp et ua te d

raci al seg reg at io n a nd di sc riminat io n in St . Lo ui s pu bl ic sch oo ls in vi ol at io n o f he r

ch il dr en ’s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. Se e Li dd el l v. Bd. of Edu c.

, 46 9 F. Su pp

. 13 04 (E.D.

Mo . 19 79 ).

In 19 73

, th e di st ric t co ur t cert ifi ed th e Lid de ll pl ai nt iff cl as s. In 19 76

, an ot he r

gr ou p of st ud en ts an d pa ren ts

, to ge th er wit h th e NAACP, in te rv en ed in th e li ti ga ti on

.

-3

-W e refe r to th em as th e Cal dwe ll -NAACP pl ai nt iff s. Se e Li dd el l v. Ca ld

wel l

, 54 6

F.2 d 7 6 8

, 76 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 76 ). In 19 77

, th e St at e of Mi ss ou ri, th e Mi ss ou ri St at e

Bo ard of Edu cat io n, an d th e St a te Co m m is si on er of Edu cat io n were m ad e de fen da nt s.

Li dd el l , 46 9 F . Sup p. at 13 12

.

In 19 83

, th e pa rti es ag reed on a co m pr eh en si ve de se gr eg at io n pl a n th at

pr ov id ed fo r a vo lu nt ary su bu rb an tra ns fer pr og ram

, m ag ne t sc ho ol s, ne w ed uc at io n

pr og ram s, cap it al im

pr ov em en ts

, an d im

pr ov ed vo cat io na l e d u c a t i o n in th e sc ho ol

di st ric t. Li dd

el l v. Bd. of Edu c.

, 56 7 F. Su pp

. 10 37 (E.D. Mo

. 19 83 ). The St at e an d

th e Ci ty Board fun de d t hi s p la n.

In 19 96

, th e St at e m ov e d fo r a de cl arat io n th at th e Ci ty Bo ard no lo ng er

op erat ed a se gr eg at ed sc ho ol syste m an d fo r rel ie f fro m it s fu nd in g ob li ga ti on s un de r

th e de se gr eg at io n pl an

. Afte r th ree y ears of ne go ti at io ns

, th e pa rti es reac he d, an d th e

co ur t ap pr ov ed , th e 1 99 9 Des eg reg at io n S et tl em en t Ag reem en t (t he Agre em en t).

Und er th e Agr eem en t, th e pa rti es ag reed th at th e C i t y Bo ard wou ld co nt in ue

va rio us rem ed ia ti on pr og ram s. In ex ch an ge

, th e St

. Lou is Pu bl ic Sch oo l Dis tri ct (th e

Dis tri ct ) wou ld rece iv e a m in im um of $6 0 m il li on in fu nd in g pe r y ear, co ns is ti ng of

a co m bi na ti on of st at e ai d an d lo cal ta x rev en ue

. Sen at e Bi ll 78 1, pa ss ed in 19 98

, se t

fo rth a rev is ed fu nd in g fo rm ul a fo r cal cu la ti ng st at e ai d to th e Dis tri ct

. The rem ai nd er

of t h e A g r eem en t’s fu nd in g cam e fro m a “ de se gr eg at io n sa le s ta x” th at St

. Lou is

vo te rs ap pr ov ed on Feb ru ary 2, 1 99 9.

Sen at e Bi ll 78 1, i n a dd it io n to pr ov id in g st at e fu nd in g un de r th e Set tl em en t

A g r e e m en t, crea te d St

. Lou is ch art er sc ho ol s an d pr ov id ed fo r th ei r fu nd in g. Th e

19 98 la w r eq ui red th e Dis tri ct to pa y ch art er sc ho ol s a pe r pu pi l po rti on of it s s t at e

ai d fo r e a c h r e si de nt st ud en t who ch os e to at te nd a ch art er sc ho ol rat he r th an a

Dis tri ct sc ho ol

. Fro m 1 9 9 9 u n t i l 20 06

, ho wev er, th e Dis tri ct di d no t in cl ud e an y

-4

-rev en ue rai se d fro m th e de se gr eg at io n sa le s ta x in th e fu nd s t h a t t he Dis tri ct

tra ns ferr ed to th e ch art er s ch oo ls

.

In 20 06

, th e Gen eral Ass em bl y pa ss ed Sen at e Bi ll 28 7, whi ch rev is ed th e st at e

ai d fu nd in g fo rm

ul a f o r p u b l i c sc ho ol s. Se e ge ne ra ll y Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 16 3.0 31

(2 00 6) . Sen at e Bi ll 28 7 a ll owe d c ha rte r sc ho ol s to be for m ed as “ lo cal ed uc at io na l

ag en ci es ,” m ean in g th at St

. Lou is ch art er sc ho ol s wou ld rece iv e ai d di rect ly fro m th e

St at e in st ead of th e Dis tri ct

. Und er th e 20 06 l a w

, w he n a ch art er sc ho ol de cl ares

it se l f a l o c a l ed uc at io na l ag en cy

, th e St at e m us t “ red uc e th e pa y m en t m ad e to th e

sc ho ol di st ric t by th e am ou nt sp eci fie d in th is su bs ect io n a n d pa y di rect ly to th e

ch art er sc ho ol th e an nu al am ou nt red uc ed fro m th e sc ho ol di st ric t’s p ay m en t.” Id

. § 16 0.4 15 .4. W hi le Sen at e Bi ll 78 1 in 19 98 ha d no t req ui red th e Dis tri ct to pa y an y

p o r t i o n of it s lo cal ta x rev en ue to th e ch art er sc ho ol s, Sen at e Bi ll 28 7 in 20 06

m an da te d th at ch art er st ud en ts rece iv e a pe r p u pi l pe rcen ta ge of lo cal ta x rev en ue s

rece iv ed by the Dis tri ct

. Id

. § 1 60 .41 5.2 (1 ), 16 0.4 15 .4.

The Jo in t Mo va nt s co nt en d th at si nc e 20 06

, t h e M i ss ou ri Dep art m en t of

Elem en ta ry an d Seco nd ary Edu cat io n (th e Dep art m en t), ap pl y in g th e rev is ed fu nd in g

fo rm ul a, ha s re du ced th e fu nd s i t pa y s to th e Dis tri ct an d re al lo cat ed th os e fu nd s t o

th e ch art er sc ho ol s. Acco rd in g to th e Jo in t Mo va nt s, th e Depa rtment co ns id ers th e

D ist ri ct ’ s loc al ta x re ve nu e—i nc lu di ng th e de se gr eg at io n ta x rev en ue —i n cal cu la ti n g

th e am ou nt of a id to real lo cat e fro m th e Dis tri ct to th e ch art er s ch oo ls

.

In th ei r m ot io n to en fo rce th e Agr eem en t, th e Jo in t Mo va nt s ar g u e t h at th e

Agr eem en t “ m an da te s th at th e Des eg reg at io n Tax wou ld be pa id to th e Dis tri ct on ly

fo r de se gr eg at io n rem ed ia ti on pu rp os es .” The y arg ue th at th e Dep art m en t, thr ou gh

it s im pl em en ta ti on of Sen at e Bi ll 28 7’s fu nd in g fo rm ul a, ha s vi ol at ed th e Agr eem en t

by di ve rti ng m or e th an $4 2 m il li on do ll ars in de se gr eg at io n ta x rev en ue to th e ch art er

sc ho ol s. The Jo in t Mo va nt s se ek an or de r di rect in g th e St at e to rei m bu rs e th e Dis tri ct

-5

-fo r th es e rev en ue s an d to di sc on ti nu e th e pr act ic e of al lo cat in g de se gr eg at io n t a x

pr oc eed s t o t he ch art er s ch oo ls

.

Ro ss an d Pi erce se ek to in te rv en e as of rig ht un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ci v i l

Pro ced ur e 24 (a)( 2)

. In th e al te rn at iv e, th ey as k th e co ur t to gr an t th em pe rm is si on to

in te rv en e un de r Ru le 24 (b ). The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n, co nc lu di ng th at th e

ch art er pa ren ts ha d no t sa ti sf ie d th e in jury-in -fac t req ui rem en t of Arti cl e III st an di ng

.

II.

W e ge ne ral ly rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n on Arti cl e III st an di ng de

n o v o

. Se e Am. Ci vi l Li be rt ie s Uni on of Min n. v. Ta re k ib n Zi ya d Aca d.

, 6 4 3 F

. 3 d

10 88

, 10 92 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). The Jo in t Mo va nt s arg ue th at we sh ou ld rev ie w fo r cl ear

erro r in th is cas e be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t “re l i e d on affi da vi ts an d ex hi bi ts in

co nju nc ti on wit h th e m ot io n to in te rv en e.” To be su re, whe re a di st ric t co ur t rel ie s

on “ it s own de te rm in at io n of di sp ut ed fact ua l is su es ” to res ol ve a m ot io n to di sm is s,

we rev ie w th e fin di ng s of fact fo r cl ear erro r. Osb or n v. Uni te d St at es

, 91 8 F.2 d 72 4,

73 0 ( 8 t h C i r

. 19 90 ). Here, ho wev er, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ba se it s st an di ng

de te rm in at io n on a res ol ut io n of di sp ut ed fact s. W hi le th e ch art er pa ren ts di d at ta ch

se ve ral ex hi bi ts wit h th ei r m ot io n to in te rv en e, t h e d i s tri ct co ur t di sc us se d on ly

al le ga ti on s th at ap pe ared on th e face of th e m ot io n. And ev en if th e di st ric t co ur t di d

co ns id er th e ex hi bi ts

, th es e were “ m at eri al s ne ces sa ril y em br aced by th e pl ead in gs ,”

so th e co ur t was free to co ns id e r t h e m al on g wit h th e face of th e m ot io n wit ho ut

res ol vi ng an y fact ua l di sp ut es

. Ku hn s v. Sc ot tr ad e, In c.

, 86 8 F.3 d 71 1, 71 5 (8 th Ci r.

20 17 ). Bec au se th e di st ric t co ur t m ad e no fin di ng s on di sp ut ed is su es of fact an d

ru le d ba se d on th e pl ead in gs

, we rev ie w de no vo whe th er th e ch art er pa ren ts ha ve

st an di ng

.

“ An Arti cl e III cas e or co nt ro ve rs y is on e whe re al l pa rti es ha ve st an di ng

, an d

a wou ld -b e in te rv en or

, be cau se he se ek s to pa rti ci pa te as a pa rty, m us t ha ve st an di ng

-6

-as well .” Mau so lf v. Bab bi tt

, 85 F.3 d 12 95

, 13 00 (8 th Ci r. 1 9 9 6 ) ; se e To wn of

Ch es te r v. La ro e Est at es

, In c.

, 13 7 S

. C t

. 1 6 4 5

, 16 51 (2 01 7)

. A pr os pe ct iv e

in te rv en or , th en , m

us t s at is fy

th e fam il ia r req ui rem en ts of Arti cl e III sta nd in g. The

in te rv en or m

us t ha ve “ (1 ) su ffer ed an in jury in fact

, (2 ) th at is fai rly tra ceab le to th e

c ha ll en ge d co nd uc t of th e de fen da nt

, an d (3 ) th at is li ke ly to be red res s e d b y a

fav or ab le jud ic ia l de ci si on .” Sp ok eo , I nc

. v. Rob in s , 1 36 S. Ct . 1 54 0, 15 47 (2 01 6)

.

To es ta bl is h an in

jury in fact

, th e in te rv en or m us t sh ow he or sh e su ffer ed “ ‘an

in va si on of a le g a l l y p ro te ct ed in te res t’ th at is ‘con cret e an d pa rti cu la riz ed ’ an d

‘actu al or im m in en t, no t co njec tu ral or hypo th et ic al .’ ” Id

. at 15 48 (q uo ti ng Lu ja n v.

Defs . of W il dl if e , 50 4 U.S. 5 55 , 56 0 (1 99 2) ).

W e co ns tru e a m ot io n to in te rv en e in fav or of th e p r o s p ect iv e in te rv en or

,

acce pt in g a ll m at eri al al le ga ti on s as tru e. Ta re k ib n Ziya d Acad

. , 64 3 F.3d at 1 09 2.

In ev al ua ti ng whe th er t h e c h a r t e r pa ren ts ha ve st an di ng

, we acce pt as tru e th e

m ov an ts ’ al le g at io ns of in jury, cau sa ti on

, an d red res sa bi li ty, un le ss th e pl ead in g

refl ect s a “ sh am ” o r “ fri vo li ty.” Ko za k v. W el ls

, 27 8 F .2d 10 4, 1 09 (8t h C ir. 1 96 0)

.

Thi s is th e sa m e st an da rd th at we ap pl y in de ci di ng a m ot io n to di sm is s. Se e Uni te d

St at es v. Metr o. S t. Lo ui s S ewe r Di st

. , 56 9 F .3d 82 9, 8 34 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9)

.

The Sp eci al Adm in is tra ti ve Bo ard co nt en ds th at al le ga ti on s by th em se lv es are

in su ffi ci en t, an d th at th e m ov an ts m us t su bm it affi da vi ts or ot he r ev id en ce to

de m on st rat e st an di ng . But th e pr in ci pa l au th or it y ci te d in su pp or t of th is arg um en t

in vo lv ed an as se ss m en t of st an di ng aft er a fin al de ci si on on th e m eri ts

. Se e W it tma n

v. Pers on hu ba ll ah

, 13 6 S. Ct

. 17 32

, 17 35 (2 01 6)

. It is we l l e s t a b l i sh ed th at th e

“ m a nn er an d de gr ee of ev id en ce” req ui red fo r a pl ai nt iff to es ta bl is h st an di ng de pe nd s

o n t h e s t ag e th e li ti ga ti on ha s reac he d. Lu ja n

, 50 4 U.S. at 56 1. On a m ot i o n t o

in te rv en e, th e pu ta ti ve in te rv en or s m ay es ta bl is h th e el em en ts of Arti cl e III st an di ng

ba se d o n wel l-p le ad ed all eg at io ns alo ne

.

-7

-The Sp eci al Adm in is tra ti ve Bo ard arg ue s th at th e ch art er pa ren ts ha v e n o t

es ta bl is he d an in

jury in fact be cau se th ey as se rt in ju r i e s th at are “ co njec tu ral an d

hypo th et ic a l

. ” It is tru e th at “ ‘[a] ll eg at io ns of po ss ib le fu tu re in jury’ are no t

su ffi ci en t” to sa ti sf

y th e in jury-in

- f act req ui rem en t. Cl ap

pe r v. Amnes ty In t’l USA

,

56 8 U.S. 39 8, 40 9 (2 01 3) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng W hi tmo re v. Arka ns as

, 49 5

U.S. 14 9, 15 8 (1 99 0) ). The m ot io n to in te rv en e, ho wev er, i n c l u d e d a l le ga ti on s of

co nc ret e h arm

th at are d efi ni te an d re al . Spe ci fic al ly, th e ch art er p aren ts pl ead ed :

If th e Sp eci al Adm in is tra ti ve Bo ard pr ev ai ls in it s m ot io n, Mr. Ro ss an d

Ms

. Pi erce

, a n d t h e i r ch il dr en

, wo ul d su ff er a lo ss in ed

uc at io na l

fu nd in g fo r te ach ers

, faci li ti es

, an d eq ui pm en t ne ces sa ry fo r th ei r

ch il dr en ’s ed uc at io n. Thi s wo ul d er od e th e qu al it

y an d re pu ta ti on of th e

ch ar te r pu bl ic sc ho ol

s th at Mr. Ro ss ’s an d Ms

. Pi erce ’s ch il dr en at te nd

.

Tak in g th is well -p le ad ed al le ga ti on as tr u e

, t h e c ha rte r sc ho ol s wil l su ffer a lo ss of

fu nd in g an d a de cl in e in qu al it y if th e Jo in t Mov an ts pr ev ai l. Thi s all eg ed in jury to

th e Ro ss an d Pi erce fam il ie s, res ul ti ng fro m th e pl ai nt iff s’ req ue st ed tra ns fer of te ns

of m il li on s of do ll ars away fro m th e sc ho ol s th at th e Ro ss an d Pi erce ch il dr en at te nd

,

is ne it he r co njec tu ral no r hypo th et ic al an d is su ffi ci en tl y im m in en t to co ns ti tu te an

in jury in fa ct

.

The Jo in t Mo va nt s al so co m pl ai n th at th e ch art er pa ren ts al le ge in jury on ly to

th ird pa rti es

, na m el y th e ch art er sc ho ol s, rat he r th an to th em se lv es an d th ei r ch il dr en

.

Bu t th e ch art er pa ren ts ha ve al le ge d th ei r own di rect in te res t in t h e qu al it y of th e

ch art er sc ho ol s. The y

pl ead ed th at th e ed uc at io na l fu nd in g t ha t th e ch art er sc ho ol s

rece iv e an d ha ve rece iv ed —i ns of ar as it su pp or ts te ach ers an d fu nd s sc ho ol faci li ti es

an d eq ui pm en t— is “ ne ces sa ry ” fo r th ei r ch il dr en ’s ed uc at io n. The ch art er pa ren ts do

no t res t th ei r cl ai m so le ly on th e eco no m ic in te res ts of th e ch art er sc ho ol s, bu t al le ge

a n i n ju r y to th ei r ch il dr en ’s ed uc at io na l in te res ts an d op po rtu ni ti es

. Pare nt s h a v e

st an di ng to su e whe n pr act ic es an d po li ci es of a sc ho ol t h r e a te n th ei r rig ht s an d

in t e r e s ts an d th os e of th ei r ch il dr en

. Se e, e.g

. , Par en ts In vo lv ed in Cmty

. Sc h. v.

-8

-Se at tl e Sc h. Dis t. No

. 1

, 55 1 U.S. 70 1

, 71 8- 19 (2 00 7) ; Sc h. Dis t. of Abi ng to n Twp

. v.

Sc he mpp

, 37 4 U.S. 20 3, 22 4 n. 9 (1 96 3)

. The ch art er pa ren ts

, th eref or e, ad eq ua te ly

pl ead ed im

m in e n t i nju ry th at th reat en s th em an d th ei r ch il dr en pe rs on al ly. W e

co nc lu de th at th e ch art er pa ren ts ha ve sa ti sf ie d th e in jury-in -fac t req ui rem en t of

Arti cl e III s ta nd in g.

To sa ti sf y th e tra ceab il it y an d red res sa b i l i t y req ui rem en ts of Arti cl e III

st an di ng

, th e ch art er pa ren ts m us t es ta bl is h th at th ei r in

jury is “ fai rly tra ceab le to th e

ch al le ng ed co nd uc t of th e de fen da nt ”—h ere, th e St at e of Mi ss ou ri— an d t h a t t he ir

in jury is “ li ke ly to be red res se d by a fav or ab le de ci si on .” Sp ok eo

, 13 6 S. Ct

. at 15 47

.

The ch art er pa ren ts pl ead ed th a t

, i f t h e Jo in t Mo va nt s pr ev ai l, th e ch art er sc ho ol s

wou ld lo se fu nd in g, an d th e qu al it y o f t he ir ch il dr en ’s ed uc at io n wou ld su ffer as a

res ul t. The m ot io n to en fo rce th e se tt le m en t ag reem en t is ai m ed at th e St at e an d se ek s

an or de r di rect in g th e St at e to red uc e fu nd in g t o c h a r t e r sc ho ol s. The St at e wou ld

th us be co m

pe ll ed to cau se th e al le ge d in jury if th e m ot io n to en fo rce su ccee ds

, so th e

al le ge d in jury is fai rly tra ceab le to th e St at e. Se e Ta re k ib n Zi ya d Aca d.

, 64 3 F.3 d at

10 93

. The al le ge d in

jury a l so wou ld be red res se d by a fav or ab le de ci si on : if th e

Jo in t Mo va nt s do no t pr ev ai l on th ei r m ot io n to en fo rce, th e St at e wil l no t be req ui red

to rei m bu rs e th e Dis tri ct fo r pa st al lo cat io ns of th e de se gr eg at io n ta x rev en ue

, an d th e

St at e m ay co nt in ue to all oc at e a p or ti on of t he tax rev en ue to th e ch art er s ch oo ls

.

The Jo in t Mo va nt s arg ue th at th e ch art er pa ren ts la ck st an di ng be cau se th ey do

no t ha ve a le ga ll y pr ot ect ab le in te res t un de r th e Agr eem en t. The y dr aw ou r at te nt io n

to Pur e Co un tr

y, In c. v. Si

gma Ch i Fra te rn it

y

, 31 2 F.3d 95 2 (8 th Cir . 20 02 ), whe re

th is co ur t co nc lu de d th at “ st ra n g ers to a co ns en t de cree ge ne ral ly do no t ha ve

st an di ng to en fo rce a co ns en t de cree .” Id

. at 95 8. Pur e Co un tr y sa id th at a th ird pa rty

se ek in g to en fo rce a de cree m us t sh ow “ th at th e pa rti es to th e co ns en t de cree no t on ly

in te nd ed to co nf

er a be ne fit up on th at th ird pa rty, bu t al so in te nd ed to gi ve th at th ird

pa rty a le ga ll y bi nd in g an d en fo rcea bl e r i g h t to th at be ne fit .” Id

. In th is cas e,

ho wev er, th e ch art er pa ren ts do no t s eek to en fo rce a n a gr eem en t to whi ch th ey are

-9

-s t r an ge rs

. The y co nt en d, rat he r, th at th e Jo in t Mo va nt s are se ek in g to ex pa nd t h e

se tt le m en t ag reem en t be y on d it s bo un da rie s in a way th at wou ld ha rm no n- pa rti es to

th e ag reem en t. The rat io na le of Pur e Co un tr y do es no t fo rb id a th ird p a r ty who

wou ld be in

jure d by a pu rp or te d en fo rcem en t of a se tt le m en t ag reem en t fro m

in te rv en in g t o ur ge th at th e ag reem en t be co nf in ed to wha t th e pu ta ti ve in te rv en or s

co ns id er t o b e it s p ro pe r sc op e.

III.

The di st ric t co ur t den ie d th e ch art er pare nt s’ m ot io n to in te rv en e on st an di ng

gr ou nd s al on e an d di d no t co ns id er th e m eri ts of th ei r m ot i o n

. The pa rti es ha ve

arg ue d th e ti m el in es s an d th e m eri ts of th e m ot io n in th is ap pe al

, bu t we co nc lu de th at

th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld co ns id er th os e is su es in th e fir st in st an ce, es pe ci al ly be cau se

no t al l is su es are pu rel y le ga l qu es ti on s su bjec t to de no vo rev ie w by th is co ur t. If th e

di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de s th at th e m ot io n to in te rv en e is ti m el y

, th en it sh ou ld pr oc eed

to th e m eri ts an d de te rm in e whe th er th e m ot io n m eet s th e req ui rem en ts fo r m an da to ry

in te rv en ti on un de r Ru le 24 (a)( 2)

, or whe th er th e ch art er pa ren ts sh ou ld be pe rm it te d

to in te rv en e un de r Ru le 24 (b ). The or de r di sm is si ng th e m ot io n to in te rv en e fo r la ck

of st an di ng is rev ers ed , and th e cas e is rem an de d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

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

-1 0-