Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

American Lung Association v. Reilly

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureInterventionSubject-Matter JurisdictionClean Air ActRule 24(a)(2)intervention as of rightabuse of discretionadequate representation

Facts

The Clean Air Act required the EPA to make a final decision on whether to revise or retain the national ambient air quality standards for ozone by December 31, 1990, but the EPA had not done so. Plaintiffs brought a citizen suit in the Eastern District of New York to compel the EPA to perform that statutory duty and sought deadlines for proposal, notice and comment, and final action. The utilities moved to intervene as defendants, asserting failure to state a claim and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court denied intervention and then entered a consent order requiring the EPA to publish a proposed decision by August 1, 1992, allow at least 60 days for comment, and publish a final decision by March 1, 1993.

Issue

Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the utilities' motion to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2), and whether the Eastern District of New York had subject-matter jurisdiction over a suit to compel the EPA to meet the Clean Air Act's ozone NAAQS review deadline.

Rule

A movant seeking intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) must file a timely application, claim an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, show that disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the ability to protect that interest, and show that the interest is not adequately represented by existing parties. Under the Clean Air Act, a claim alleging failure to comply with a bright-line statutory deadline is a nondiscretionary-duty claim, not an agency-action-unreasonably-delayed claim; therefore, it is not subject to the exclusive venue rule applicable to unreasonable-delay actions tied to nationally applicable regulations.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A federal statute requires the National Water Office to decide by June 1, 2026, whether to retain or revise a nationwide drinking-water benchmark. After the agency misses that date, several health groups sue in federal district court in Chicago only to compel the agency to begin notice-and-comment proceedings and reach a final decision. Great Plains Beverage Council, a trade association whose members might face higher compliance costs if the benchmark is tightened, moves to intervene as of right as a defendant.

Should the court most likely grant intervention as of right?

Explanation. Rule 24(a)(2) requires a timely motion, a direct interest in the action, practical impairment, and inadequate representation. In a suit that seeks only to force an agency to meet a fixed statutory duty, an industry group’s interest in avoiding possible future regulation can be viewed as contingent and remote because it depends on success in the suit and on a later substantive agency choice. That is the reasoning the majority approved in denying intervention. (Derived from American Lung Association v. Reilly (n.d.).)