Court Opinion

ID: 9634169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 12:52:52.709516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:55.251436
License: Public Domain

KENNEDY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority’s disposition with regard to appellant TAFM. I cannot, however, agree that Northland Family Planning Clinic v. Cox, 487 F.3d 323, 346 (6th Cir.2007), “compels us to hold that the MCRI’s and the ACRF’s status ... is insufficient to provide them with a substantial legal interest” in this case. Maj. Op., ante at 781-82. The majority relies on that opinion to avoid clear prior holdings from both our circuit and the Ninth Circuit (whose holdings we had previously adopted). Therefore, because I conclude that MCRI and ACRF have a substantial legal interest (and easily meet the other Rule 24(a) factors), I dissent.
I. Substantial Legal Interest
The majority relies almost solely on Northland Family Planning; indeed, it concludes that case “compels” its holding here. Maj. Op. at 781-82. Northland Family Planning is distinguishable because (1) the challenged state law in that case was enacted by the legislature, rather than by the citizens through constitutional amendment as here, and (2) the groups here have raised reasons why they cannot *785rely on the office of the Michigan Attorney General to vigorously advocate the constitutionality of Proposal 2.
At the outset, however, I would note that the majority can only rely on North-land Family Planning because that case fundamentally altered the Rule 24(a) landscape. Prior precedent was consistent in holding that “interest” was to be construed liberally and “close cases should be resolved in favor of recognizing an interest under Rule 24(a).” Michigan State AFL-CIO v. Miller, 103 F.3d 1240, 1245, 1247 (6th Cir.1997). While Northland Family Planning carefully distinguished our and some of the Ninth Circuit’s prior holdings on their facts, it ignored the basis for those holdings.1
In Miller we cited with approval a Ninth Circuit rule that “a public interest group that is involved in the process leading to adoption of legislation has a cognizable interest in defending that legislation.” Id. That rule found its genesis in a case that cannot be distinguished from Northland Family Planning. In Washington State Bldg, and Const. Trades Council, AFL-CIO v. Spellman, a voter approved initiative “prohibited] the transportation and storage within [the state] of radioactive waste produced outside the state.” 684 F.2d 627, 629 (9th Cir.1982). The legislature of the state subsequently enacted legislation pursuant to the initiative. In a lawsuit against the state challenging the constitutionality of the statute, the citizen-group sponsor of the legislation moved to intervene, but the district court denied its motion. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court and held that the appellant, “as the public interest group that sponsored the initiative, was entitled to intervention as a matter of right under Rule 24(a).” Id. at 630. The public interest group was not regulated by the initiative, which the majority concludes is critical here, Maj. Op. ante at 782-83, nor was it involved in serial litigation concerning the initiative, which Noiihland Family Planning found was important in Miller. 487 F.3d at 344-45. Nonetheless, and despite consistent citation with approval to the line of Ninth Circuit cases beginning with Spellman, a panel of this court reached the opposite conclusion in Northland Family Planning.
There are good reasons to conclude, however, that the sponsors of a constitutional amendment, like Proposal 2 in this case, have a greater interest in defending the measure than the group that sought to intervene in Northland Family Planning.2 *786There we noted that “in a challenge to the constitutionality of an already enacted statute ... the public interest in its enforceability is entrusted for the most part to the government, and the public’s legal interest in the legislative process becomes less relevant.” 487 F.3d at 345 (emphasis mine). That insight rests on a simple presumption: When the government has passed a law, it can be trusted to administer it. When, as here, however, government did not pass the law, but rather the citizens of the state amended their constitution in a general election' (arguably because their elected officials would not accede to their will), that presumption does not arise.
The procedural history of this case confirms that the plaintiffs have a basis for their fear that the office of the Attorney General cannot be relied on to defend “the public interest in [this amendment’s] enforceability.” Id. As the majority notes, the Attorney General and the Governor have already compromised with the plaintiffs and the cross-claimants in this case and stipulated to an injunction that, we have previously found, had no basis in federal law. Maj. Op. ante at 778-79; Coalition v. Granholm, 473 F.3d 237, 244-247 (6th Cir.2006). In addition the “government” in this case is divided; prior to the 2006 general election, the Attorney General publicly supported Proposal 2 and the Governor opposed it. Therefore, while the Attorney General takes the view in his filings that the amendment does not violate the federal Constitution, the Governor has indicated a possibility that she might conclude otherwise. Indeed, although she was sued in her official capacity only, she has requested that the Attorney General put a conflict wall in place in his office to ensure that her position is represented in federal court without the influence of the Attorney General. Governor’s Br. at 4-5, No. 06-2656. The Governor and the Attorney General have both filed answers in the district court and, by all appearances, intend to litigate the matter separately.
Therefore, the State of Michigan (the only appropriate defendant in an action to declare a measure adopted in a general election unconstitutional) does not appear to be a party in this case. Instead, Attorney General Cox and Governor Granholm are both either named defendants or, in the case of Attorney General Cox, an intervening defendant because they have recognized potential for conflicting views (and thus different litigation strategies) between them. It is also unclear what the status of Governor Granholm, as a party, actually is. After Attorney General Cox intervened, she should no longer have been in the case, yet she has continued to file briefs here in support of the denial of intervention, as well as pleadings and briefs in the court below.
All of this reinforces concern with entrusting the “public interest in enforceability” of a general election, voter-approved measure to elected officials. As the example of the Governor proves, there are cases in which the elected officials of a state will disagree with the majority of the voting population on a particular point of public *787policy. Therefore, when the voters demonstrate their preference on that point of public policy through the constitutional amendment process, it follows that some representative of the voters has a “substantial interest” in defending that position: I agree with the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion in Spellman that the sponsor of the measure should be that representative.
The point, therefore, is simply that measures approved by the voting public in a general election are different from legislative acts. This point does not depend on the policy preferences of particular elected officials. Rather, the possibility of conflict creates a substantial interest. It does not matter in the substantial interest inquiry that the Attorney General supported Proposal 2 before the election. That fact will be weighed in consideration of the last factor, namely whether a party already in the case will sufficiently represent the position of the proposed intervenor. I turn to that factor, as well as the other remaining ones, presently.
II. Remaining factors
Because it concludes that MCRI and ACRF do not have a substantial legal interest in this case, the majority does not address the remaining factors. I would find, however, that (1) the district court abused its discretion when it determined that the motion to intervene was not timely, (2) the ability of MCRI and ACRF to protect its substantial legal interest may be impaired in the absence of intervention, and (3) that the Attorney General, as well as the other parties in the case, might not adequately represent that interest.
First, the parties’ motion to intervene was timely. While it is true that appellants must have known about the litigation shortly after it was filed, it is equally clear that the litigation had not progressed by the time they moved to intervene. “The absolute measure of time between the filing of the complaint and the motion to intervene is one of the least important ... circumstances” to consider. Stupak-Thrall v. Glickman, 226 F.3d 467, 475 (6th Cir.2000). The Attorney General stated in his motion to intervene, filed the very same day as appellants’ and found to be timely, that “intervention will in no way unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties since this suit is in its initial phase.” Attorney General’s Mot. Interv. ¶ 17. Appellants waited only a week after service on the Governor and only one day after notice of that service was filed in the district court before filing their motion. No discovery had occurred and no orders had issued. None of the traditional hallmarks of a progressing litigation yet existed.
Second, to dispose of the present case without allowing the intervention of the MCRI and ACRF would compromise their ability to protect their interests, as an adverse ruling would threaten the viability of the constitutional amendment that these groups supported. To satisfy this element, “a would-be intervenor must show only that impairment of its substantial legal interest is possible if intervention is denied[,]” a “burden [that] is minimal.” Miller, 103 F.3d at 1247 (citing Purnell v. City of Akron, 925 F.2d 941, 948 (6th Cir.1991)) (emphasis mine). As such, the appellants’ showing that an adverse determination in this case has the potential to hinder their ability to protect their interest in eliminating race-based preferences is sufficient to support intervention.
Third, the Attorney General might not adequately represent the appellants’ interest in this matter. The threshold for this requirement is again low; appellants need not show that representation won’t be inadequate, only that the potential exists that the Attorney General will not make all of their arguments. Grutter v. Bolling*788er, 188 F.3d 394, 400 (6th Cir.1999); Sagebrush Rebellion, Inc. v. Watt, 713 F.2d 525, 528 (9th Cir.1983). The procedural history of this case indicates that this potentiality exists. While the opponents of the motion have argued that the stipulated injunction was merely a litigation strategy rather than a different theory of the case, the fact that this court overturned the stipulated injunction on appeal indicates that a more zealous litigation approach could significantly alter the enforcement and ultimately the interpretation of this constitutional amendment. In addition, the conflict wall set up across the Attorney General’s office at the request of the Governor further indicates that different interpretations of this provision and its interaction with federal constitutional and statutory law are possible; the appellants’ interpretation could be more expansive than that of the existing parties.
i’fi * Hi
In order to ensure vigorous advocacy so that we do not intrude on states’ interests in the constitutionality of their own laws, I would hold that sponsors of voter initiatives may intervene as of right to defend the measures they sponsored. Therefore, I would reverse the district court with regard to appellants MCRI and ACRF and remand with instructions to allow those parties to intervene pursuant to Rule 24(a).

. In addition, the intervention discussion may well be dicta. The district court in Northland Family Planning denied the State of Michigan's motion to dismiss and ruled that the state statute was unconstitutional. In the same order, it denied the public interest group’s motion to intervene as a defendant. We affirmed the ruling that the statute was unconstitutional, granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs. We also noted that, "[t]he finality of the summary judgment decision clearly has potential to render moot [the group’s] motion to intervene.” 487 F.3d at 344. Nonetheless, we addressed the question. Because the grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs ended the case on the merits, there was no need to determine whether the public interest group had the right to intervene. For this reason, future panels may reject the Rule 24(a) discussion in Northland Family Planning. Indeed, without that foundation, the decided break with prior precedent may very well convince subsequent panels to conclude that this case too is anomalous, and they need not follow it when reflecting on the body of Rule 24(a) case law in this circuit.

. An elaboration of the facts of Northland Family Planning and the Michigan initiative and constitutional amendment procedures is in order: In Michigan, a group can propose laws to the legislature through an initiative.
To invoke the initiative ... petitions signed by a number of registered electors, not less than eight percent ... of the total vote cast for all candidates for governor at the last preceding general election at which a governor was elected shall be required.... Any *786law proposed by initiative petition shall be either enacted or rejected by the legislature without change or amendment.... If any law so proposed is not enacted by the legislature within 40 days, [it] shall [be] submitted] to the people for approval or rejection at the next general election.
Mich. Const. Art. II § 9. In Northland Family Planning, the proposed intervenor had proposed the challenged law to the legislature through an initiative and the legislature had enacted the law. In contrast, in the instant case, a majority Michigan voters approved an amendment to the Michigan Constitution in a general election pursuant to Mich. Const. Art. 12 § 2.