## Facts

- Taxpayers and alleged public-lands-trust beneficiaries sued Hawaii officials and entities challenging programs of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL), and Hawaiian Homes Commission (HHC) that provided benefits to “Hawaiians” and “native Hawaiians.”
- Plaintiffs alleged the benefit schemes were unconstitutional race-based preferences violating equal protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and breached duties under the public lands trust in the Hawaii Admission Act.
- A group of native Hawaiian homestead lessees and their association (including SCHHA and an individual lessee) were granted intervention in the district court to defend the challenged programs.
- Another group of native Hawaiians (Hoohuli), also homestead lessees or applicants, moved to intervene shortly after the complaint was filed.
- Hoohuli asserted interests in (1) continued receipt of benefits as native Hawaiians and (2) limiting eligibility so benefits would go only to “native Hawaiians,” not the broader category “Hawaiians.”
- Hoohuli also sought to argue that native Hawaiians should be treated like a federally recognized tribe for purposes of judicial review, supporting more deferential scrutiny of the programs.
- The district court denied Hoohuli intervention as of right and permissive intervention; Hoohuli appealed only the intervention rulings.

## Issues

1. Whether Hoohuli satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) for intervention as of right, including whether their interests were inadequately represented by existing parties.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying permissive intervention under Rule 24(b).

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2).
- The court held that Hoohuli’s interests were adequately represented by existing intervenors already defending the same benefits and programs.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), finding no abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 24(a)(2) requires a timely motion, a significantly protectable interest, potential impairment of that interest from the action’s disposition, and inadequate representation by existing parties.
- When a proposed intervenor and an existing party share the same ultimate objective in the litigation, a presumption of adequate representation arises.
- A proposed intervenor’s desire to present additional legal arguments or different litigation strategy generally does not establish inadequate representation when objectives align.
- Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) is discretionary, and district courts may deny intervention to avoid redundancy, delay, or prejudice where existing parties already cover the relevant interests.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that native Hawaiian homestead lessees seeking to intervene were not entitled to join the case because existing intervenors already represented their objective of defending the challenged benefit programs, and the district court acted within its discretion in refusing additional, potentially cumulative participation.


Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2003)