Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Smuck v. Hobson

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 1969 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureInterventionStanding to AppealAppealsRule 24(a)(2)intervention of rightstanding to appealadequate representation

Facts

The district court found constitutional violations in the administration of the District of Columbia schools and entered a decree addressing optional zones, faculty integration, pupil transportation and assignment, and the track system. The Board of Education decided not to appeal that decree, even though a new elected board had replaced the prior appointed board. Hansen attempted to appeal in his former official capacity and as an individual, Smuck appealed as a board member, and parents of schoolchildren sought intervention to challenge the decree on appeal. The parents claimed an interest in preserving the school board's constitutionally permissible discretion over educational policy.

Issue

Whether Hansen, Smuck, or the parents had standing or a right to intervene to appeal when the Board of Education itself declined to appeal, and if so, how far that appeal could extend. Also, whether certain procedural objections and selected portions of the district court's decree should be disturbed.

Rule

Under Rule 24(a)(2), intervention of right turns on a practical inquiry: the applicant must assert an interest in the transaction, show that disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede protection of that interest, and show that existing parties do not adequately represent it. The interest requirement should be treated as a prerequisite rather than the decisive criterion, with primary attention given to practical harm and adequacy of representation. When intervention is allowed for appeal, its scope may be limited to those parts of the judgment that realistically affect the intervenor's asserted interest.

🔒

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 district court in Chicago enters an injunction requiring the Lakefront Transit Authority to eliminate several rider-assignment practices and to submit future routing plans to the court. The authority's board votes not to appeal. A group of parents whose children use the system moves after judgment to intervene solely to appeal the parts of the decree they say restrict the board's policy discretion over student transportation.

Should the parents be allowed to intervene of right for purposes of appeal?

Explanation. The majority treated Rule 24(a)(2) pragmatically. Post-judgment intervention for appeal may be allowed where the applicant has a sufficient practical interest, disposition without appeal may as a practical matter impair protection of that interest, and existing parties do not adequately represent it. The rule does not require a property interest, and post-judgment timing does not automatically bar intervention, though the circumstances warrant close scrutiny.