We have previously discussed the State of Alaska’s challenge to the Bureau of Land Management’s Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, also known as the “Public Lands Rule.” Seeking to defend the rule, which treats conservation as a valid land use, two sets of organizations moved to intervene in the case. The first is composed of the Conservation Lands Foundation and the Wilderness Society, (the “CLF Intervenors”), who state they work “to foster sound environmental stewardship of federal public lands and to conserve remaining wild places across the United States, including in Alaska.” The CLF Intervenors previously advocated for the Public Lands Rule, opposed legislation at odds with it, and provided education and editorials regarding the rule’s importance.

The second group, known as the Northern Center Intervenors, is composed of nine “community, conservation, and Tribal organizations dedicate to protecting public lands.” Notable members of this coalition include the Alaska Wilderness League, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Sierra Club. Members of the Northern Center Intervenors advocate for the protection of land, air, and cultural resources, and many of the members supported the Public Lands Rule during the rulemaking process.

Both groups moved for intervention as a matter of right, as well as for permissive intervention. The State of Alaska opposed, primarily arguing the intervenors were adequately represented by the BLM. To intervene as a matter of right, a party must claim an interest relating to the property or transaction at issue, and show their omission from the case may impair their ability to protect that interest, unless existing parties adequately represent it. To obtain permissive intervention, a party must have “a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of fact or law.” In addition, a permissive intervenor must not delay or prejudice other existing parties.

On December 4, the Alaska Federal District Court issued an order that granted both intervenor groups’ motions. The Court did not discuss whether the parties had the right to intervene, but instead granted permissive intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b). The Court explained that both parties intended to present defenses in common with the main action—i.e., defense of the Public Land Rule’s legality. The Court added that when intervenors raise no new claims, and the Court already has federal question jurisdiction, no independent jurisdictional ground is required.

The Court determined the BLM would not adequately represent the intervenor groups. It relied on Ninth Circuit precedent, which has held that “federal agencies represent a broader array of goals and thus often do not adequately represent the interests of particular groups.” Because the CLF and Northern Center intervenors focus specifically on the importance of conservation, in contrast to BLM’s responsibility to manage land for multiple uses, the Court permitted the intervention.

Conditions were placed on the intervenors, however. Each will be required to designate a lead counsel, and they must coordinate to ensure their briefs are not unnecessarily duplicative. Their briefs must be limited to 25 pages or 7,200 words.

As previously discussed, the involvement of these intervenor groups is unlikely to have a significant effect on the outcome. The State of Alaska’s challenge to the Public Lands Rule focuses primarily on the BLM’s authority to promulgate the rule, rather than the rule’s purpose.

This article summarizes aspects of the law. This article does not constitute legal advice. For legal advice regarding your situation, you should contact an attorney.