Court Opinion

ID: 9909341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 01:00:39.63107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:04.804336
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10707    Document: 00516999319        Page: 1    Date Filed: 12/12/2023

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                    United States Court of Appeals
                                                                             Fifth Circuit

                               ____________                                FILED
                                                                   December 12, 2023
                                 No. 23-10707                         Lyle W. Cayce
                               ____________                                Clerk

   Second Amendment Foundation Incorporated, Et al.,

                                                                   Plaintiffs,

   The National Rifle Association of America,
   Incorporated

                                                         Movant—Appellant,

                                     versus

   Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives;
   Steven Dettelbach, in his official capacity as Director of the Bureau of
   Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives;
   United States Department of Justice;
   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                          Defendants—Appellees.
                 ______________________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 3:21-CV-116
                 ______________________________
Case: 23-10707        Document: 00516999319              Page: 2       Date Filed: 12/12/2023

                                          No. 23-10707

   Before Chief Judge Richman, Jones, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
           The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) moved to intervene
   in this litigation challenging a recent ATF Rule regulating pistol braces.
   88 Fed. Reg. 6478 (Jan. 31, 2023). The district court denied intervention as
   of right or permissively. Finding no reversible error of law or fact and no
   abuse of discretion, we AFFIRM in part and DISMISS in part.
           Because the parties are well aware of this appeal’s genesis, we recount
   basics. NRA’s motion was filed after the district court had granted a
   preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the rule pending this court’s
   resolution of Mock v. Garland, 785 F.4th 563 (5th Cir. 2023). The district
   court found NRA’s motion untimely and also held that the current plaintiff,
   Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), adequately represented NRA’s
   interests.
           This court has appellate jurisdiction over an order denying
   intervention as of right, which is a final order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
   However, we have only “provisional jurisdiction” over orders denying
   permissive intervention. Rotstain v. Mendez, 986 F.3d 931, 942 (5th Cir.
   2021). If the court holds the district court did not abuse its discretion, it
   “must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.” Edwards v. City of
   Houston, 78 F.3d 983, 992 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc). NRA bears the burden
   to prove its entitlement to intervene. Rotstain, 986 F.3d at 937.

           _____________________
           *
            Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
   be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th
   Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

                                                2
Case: 23-10707      Document: 00516999319           Page: 3     Date Filed: 12/12/2023

                                     No. 23-10707

          NRA first seeks intervention as of right, which occurs if the applicant
   files a timely motion, “claims an interest relating to the property or
   transaction that is the subject of the action,” is situated such that the action’s
   disposition may practically impair his ability to protect his interest, and is
   “inadequately represented” with respect to his interest by existing parties.
   FED. R. CIV. P. 24(a)(2).
          The district court did not err in concluding that NRA has failed to
   show that SAF does not adequately represent NRA’s interest in this
   litigation. This court holds that a “presumption of adequate representation
   arises when the would-be intervenor has the same ultimate objective as a
   party to the lawsuit. In such cases, the applicant for intervention must show
   adversity of interest, collusion, or nonfeasance on the part of the existing
   party to overcome the presumption.” Edwards, 78 F.3d at 1005. “In order
   to show adversity of interest, an intervenor must demonstrate its interests
   diverge from the putative representative’s interests in a manner germane to
   the case.” Texas v. United States, 805 F.3d 653, 662 (5th Cir. 2015). SAF and
   NRA filed nearly identical claims and seek identical relief. Moreover, that
   SAF sought interim relief only as to its members does not diverge from the
   ultimate relief both parties desire: vacatur of the entire rule (which benefits
   all potential plaintiffs). Because NRA has not shown that SAF’s tactics are
   materially adverse to NRA’s interests, much less that collusion or
   nonfeasance occurred, this required element of intervention of right is not
   satisfied. We need not further analyze the district court’s reasoning on this
   issue. Claimed intervention as of right fails.
          Similarly, we conclude that the district court did not “clearly” abuse
   its discretion in denying permissive intervention pursuant to Federal Rule of
   Civil Procedure 24(b)(1)(B); see Edwards, 78 F.3d at 995.              The only
   requirements for permissive intervention are timely application and
   commonality of fact or legal issues between the would-be intervenor and a

                                           3
Case: 23-10707     Document: 00516999319           Page: 4   Date Filed: 12/12/2023

                                    No. 23-10707

   party. FED. R. CIV. P. 24(b)(1)(B). But the ultimate decision is highly
   discretionary with the district court. We have already noted that NRA failed
   to prove that SAF would not adequately represent NRA’s interests.
   Although minimal prejudice would accrue to the current parties if
   intervention were approved, NRA’s participation will not “contribute to the
   full development of the underlying factual issues.” New Orleans Pub. Serv.,
   Inc. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 732 F.2d 452, 472 (5th Cir. 1984). Nor is
   NRA unable to file its own suit against ATF: that very case is pending before
   another judge in the same federal district court. See Korioth v. Brisco,
   523 F.2d 1271, 1279 (5th Cir. 1975).
          For these reasons, we AFFIRM the denial of intervention as of right
   and DISMISS the denial of permissive intervention. Affirmed in Part,
   Dismissed in Part.

                                          4