Opinion ID: 173060
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standing and Justiciability Issues

Text: Before reaching the merits of the excluded voters' equal protection claims, we must first address several preliminary jurisdictional matters, including mootness and standing.
Our Article III case-or-controversy requirement continues through all stages of federal judicial proceedings. [I]t is not enough that a dispute was very much alive when suit was filed. Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477, 110 S.Ct. 1249, 108 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990). Pointing to this rule, the detaching cities argue the equal protection issue here is now moot and this case is no longer justiciable. In general a case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481, 102 S.Ct. 1181, 71 L.Ed.2d 353 (1982) (internal citation and punctuation omitted). The alleged constitutional violation before us is the denial of the right to vote. The school district held its election in November 2007, at which time the plaintiffs' cause of action accrued. Furthermore, since the election, the process of organizing the new school district has proceeded as outlined in the detachment statute. School board elections have been held, substantial money and time have been spent, and the detachment process has gone forward as planned. The cities also note that in 2009 the new district began to provide educational services to its students. The issue in the case, they argue, is thus moot. As the district court correctly concluded, however, this case fits comfortably within the established exception to mootness for disputes capable of repetition, yet evading review. FEC v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 462, 127 S.Ct. 2652, 168 L.Ed.2d 329 (2007); see also Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 737 n. 8, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974) (finding that while a challenged election was over, the case was not moot because the controversy was capable of repetition, yet evading review). This exception to mootness applies where (1) the challenged action [is] in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there [is] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party [will] be subjected to the same action again. Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149, 96 S.Ct. 347, 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975). Both circumstances are present here. Regarding the first prong of the exception, neither party disputes that the challenged actionthe November 2007 electionwas too short in duration to be fully litigated before its conclusion. The excluded voters were unable to file their complaint challenging the November election until late September 2007. As the district court noted, full litigation on the merits was simply not possible before the election. Swensen, 2008 WL 723725, at . The second prong of the capable of repetition exception requires a reasonable expectation or a demonstrated probability that the same controversy will recur involving the same complaining party. Wis. Right to Life, 551 U.S. at 463, 127 S.Ct. 2652 (quotations omitted). The same controversy is sufficiently likely to recur when a party has a reasonable expectation that it will be subjected to the alleged illegality again. See Morse v. Republican Party Va., 517 U.S. 186, 235 n. 48, 116 S.Ct. 1186, 134 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 727-28 & n. 8, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974). Here, there is a reasonable expectation that the excluded voters will be subjected to the same alleged illegality. That is so because, as the district court observed, other areas within the remaining portion of the Jordan School District were considering whether to create their own school districts. See Swensen, 2008 WL 723725, at . If a city decides to create a new district within the remaining Jordan School District, the voters would again be excluded from participating in the election on that issue. In these circumstances, we conclude a reasonable expectation exists that the same controversy involving the same complainant will recur. Because this dispute is capable of repetition but evades review, mootness does not preclude us from deciding this case.
This case also presents standing and permissive intervention issues.
Swensen is the Salt Lake County Clerk charged with placing a proposal to detach a portion of a school district on the general election ballot, and placing school board candidates in the subsequently divided school districts on the ballot. See Utah Code Ann. §§ 53A-2-118(5)(a), -118.1(3)(a)(i). Swensen argues (1) the excluded voters lack standing to assert their claims because they cannot obtain a remedy from her that will redress their injuries, and (2) the excluded voters' claims against her are now moot because she has already placed the detachment and school board candidacy issues on the ballot. We reject both arguments. The irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements: injury in fact, a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and a likelihood that a favorable decision will redress the injury. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). Swensen argues that, even assuming they can demonstrate the first two elements, the excluded voters still lack standing because they cannot show redressability. According to Swensen, because she has merely ministerial duties under the detachment statute, she cannot cure any constitutional infirmities. Whatever order federal courts may craft in this case, she has no power to enforce it upon the state, its officials, or any local government entity seeking detachment from an existing school district. The appropriate challenge, she argues, should be directed at the state. See Utah Code Ann. § 67-5-1(2) (mandating the Utah Attorney General defend in all cases where state officers are parties and take charge in civil matters of interest to the state). Swensen, however, cannot dispute that the district court has the power to enjoin her from conducting school district-related elections under her authority stemming from the challenged statute. Nor can she argue that, at the time the lawsuit was filed, she was not the appropriate local official for injunctive relief. So while she may not be able to enforce a federal remedy against the state, she was the official responsible for running the local detachment election, and may yet be subject to future federal court restrictions. This is sufficient to satisfy the voters' redressability requirement for standing. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130. Because Swensen's role under the detachment statutory scheme is ongoing, her mootness argument is unavailing. Further, as we concluded above, the issue this scheme presents is capable of repetition. We therefore reject Swensen's challenges to the voters' standing as well as her argument that the issue is moot.
In a cross-appeal, Herbert argues Herriman City is a political subdivision of the state and lacks both standing and the authority to bring a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim against Utah or its officers. The district court agreed, but nevertheless allowed Herriman City to intervene under Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Swensen, 2008 WL 723725, at . We find the district court correctly determined Herriman City lacked authority to bring an equal protection challenge, but we also conclude the district court erred in permitting Herriman City to intervene. First, the district court correctly held Herriman City may not challenge the constitutionality of a state statute under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Rural Water Dist. No. 1 v. City of Wilson, 243 F.3d 1263, 1274 (10th Cir.2001) (noting that because they are creatures of the state, political subdivisions possess no rights independent of those expressly provided to them by the state) (quotation omitted); see also Branson Sch. Dist. RE-82 v. Romer, 161 F.3d 619, 628 (10th Cir. 1998); Hous. Auth. of Kaw Tribe v. City of Ponca City, 952 F.2d 1183, 1188 (10th Cir.1991). Likewise, a political subdivision may not challenge the validity of a fellow political subdivision's actions under the Fourteenth Amendment, unless such a suit is expressly authorized. See Kaw Tribe, 952 F.2d at 1190. Because suits against state officials in their official capacities are no different than suits against the state itself, see Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989), that logic applies equally to Herbert and Swensen. Herriman City thus lacks both independent standing and the authority to bring this Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim. Second, although the district court held Herriman City had neither rights to protect under the Fourteenth Amendment nor the authority to bring suit, it nevertheless permitted the city to intervene under Rule 24(b). We review such a determination for an abuse of discretion. See Alameda Water & Sanitation Dist. v. Browner, 9 F.3d 88, 90 (10th Cir.1993). Herbert argues the district court abused its discretion because, as a matter of law, Herriman City does not satisfy Rule 24(b)'s requirements. See DeJulius v. New England Health Care Employees Pension Fund, 429 F.3d 935, 943 (10th Cir.2005) (stating a district court abuses its discretion when it bases its decision on an erroneous conclusion of law). In particular, he asserts, Herriman City lacks a claim that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact. Fed. R.Civ.P. 24(b)(1)(B) (emphasis added). Herbert contends Herriman City cannot possibly have a claim in common with the other plaintiffs because, as explained above, Herriman City does not have rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. Because Herriman City would not be able to bring a claim as a plaintiff, he concludes, the district court abused its discretion in permitting the city to intervene. We agree that Herriman City should not have been permitted to intervene. It is true our case law supports the view that a prospective intervenor need not have its own standing to intervene under Rule 24(b). See, e.g., City of Colo. Springs v. Climax Molybdenum Co., 587 F.3d 1071, 1079 (10th Cir.2009) ([P]arties seeking to intervene under Rule 24(a) or (b) need not establish independent Article III standing so long as another party with constitutional standing on the same side as the intervenor remains in the case. [S]uch piggyback standing is permissible.) (internal citations and punctuation omitted). It is also true the words claim or defense, as they appear in Rule 24(b), should not be strictly interpreted so as to preclude permissive intervention. See Nuesse v. Camp, 385 F.2d 694, 704 (D.C.Cir.1967) ([I]ntervention has been allowed in situations where the existence of any nominate `claim' or `defense' is difficult to find.) (internal quotation marks omitted). Nevertheless, to intervene under Rule 24(b) the proposed intervenor must have a claim or defense that shares at least some aspect with a claim or defense presented in the main action. Here, because the Fourteenth Amendment claim Herriman City asserts is foreclosed, Herriman City has no claim and thus cannot satisfy Rule 24(b)'s requirements. This being the case, however, nothing would prevent the district court from allowing Herriman City to participate as an amicus curiae and present its views in that manner. Accordingly, while we recognize that the district court's discretion under Rule 24(b) is very broad, see United States v. Hooker Chem. & Plastics Corp., 749 F.2d 968, 990 n. 19 (2d Cir.1984), we find that the district court should not have allowed Herriman City to participate as an intervenor against the state.