Dist. Ct. did not abuse its discretion in denying proposed intervenors’ motion to intervene in action by plaintiffs seeking vacatur of “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds Rule (Rule),” that essentially expanded meaning of “public charge” to disqualify broader set of noncitizens from benefits than earlier policies had done, under circumstances, where: (1) in November of 2020 Dist. Ct. had granted plaintiffs’ relief by vacating said Rule under Administrative Procedure Act; (2) in March of 2021, federal government had dismissed appeals defending instant Rule in courts around country; and (3) in May of 2021, proposed intervenors (various States seeking to defend Rule) filed instant motion to intervene. Dist. Ct. could properly find that instant motion to intervene was untimely, where: (1) proposed intervenors were aware by February of 2021 that federal government was going to abandon defense of instant Rule and to seek to promulgate new rule, and yet waited until May of 2021 to file instant motion to intervene; and (2) by mid-March of 2021, Dist. Ct. could reasonably have determined that it was too late to create entirely new lawsuit through intervention of instant proposed intervenors. Ct. of Appeals also noted that: (1) instant proposed intervention would have exposed original parties to entirely new set of issues; (2) proposed intervenors had other avenues to vindicate their interests; and (3) there were no unusual circumstances to justify instant delay in filing motion to intervene.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Intervention