Court Opinion

ID: 9458477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:53:00.628007+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:46.756689
License: Public Domain

TAMM, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I concur in the result the court reaches today. I do so because the particular context in which this case arises mandates, in my view, such a conclusion. As the court points out, appellants’ interests may well diverge from those of the existing parties and therefore merit consideration. I see no problem with regard to separation of powers or interference with the conduct of foreign relations in the narrow questions presented here, nor do I think appellants’ status bars intervention.1 However, I, nonetheless, feel constrained to vocalize a gnawing concern and uneasiness about a discernably fashionable trend in the judiciary today. The trend is toward justification of intervention upon incantation of the phrase “it won’t do any harm.” I respectfully submit that painting with such broad amorphous strokes absent an analysis of the hues and textures employed can only lead to a collage-cluttered canvas sans symmetry or perspective. Granted intervention is a useful tool, but it is a tool which must be used carefully. We are presently in the day of the multi-party class action suit where trial judges are often hard-pressed to narrow issues and parties. These judges valiantly strive to prevent a lawsuit from becoming unwieldy; we should be similarly wary, lest the manageable lawsuit become an unmanageable cowlick.

. Cf. Constructores Civiles de Centroamerica, S. A. v. Hannah, 148 U.S.App.D.C. 159, 459 F.2d 1183 (1972)., For a recent discussion of standing in environmental law see Comment, Standing and Sovereign Immunity: Hurdles for Environmental Litigants, 12 Santa Clara Lawyer 123 (1972).