Since the outcome is never known, the courts have minimized the showing required for this prong. Applicants' interests lie in the future of affirmative action as a component in the Law School's admission system. One need not consult a soothsayer to recognize that in a case seeking the dismantlement of affirmative action, one possible outcome is that outcome. Applicants have made a sufficient claim of inadequate representation. Plaintiff turns the Rule's timeliness requirement on its head by suggesting that it is too early for applicants to claim that their interests may be inadequately represented by the University.
Applicants have the right to present their claims and evidence.
Plaintiff complains that applicants will expand the issues. As far as permissive intervention is concerned, all the issues applicants seek to develop are indispensable to evaluating the fairness and legality of the Law School's admissions system. Indeed, to streamline a case of such magnitude and complexity would impair the Court's ability to evaluate the questions raised by plaintiff. Expansion of the scope of the case is irrelevant to intervention as of right. The judicial economy interests behind the Rule are those of the judicial system as a whole, and are not served by maximally streamlining every case.