## Facts

- The U.S. Forest Service approved two timber-harvest projects in the Allegheny National Forest.
- Individual residents and an environmental organization sued to enjoin the projects and to obtain declaratory relief, alleging violations of federal environmental statutes in the approvals.
- Local school districts and townships sought to intervene, asserting statutory entitlements to shares of timber-sale receipts that materially affected local budgets.
- Timber companies and an industry nonprofit sought to intervene, asserting reliance on Forest Service timber contracts, including existing awards, delayed contracts due to the litigation, and regular participation in bidding for future sales.
- The district court allowed intervention by two contract-holding companies (Payne and Spilka) but denied intervention to the remaining school districts, townships, a successful bidder whose contract was delayed, other timber businesses, and the industry group.
- The denied applicants appealed the intervention ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether the denied applicants satisfied Rule 24(a)(2) by showing a sufficient interest in the action, likely impairment of that interest from the litigation’s disposition, and that the Forest Service might not adequately represent their interests.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) in light of the applicants’ asserted interests and case-management concerns.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed in part and remanded.
- The court held the district court applied an unduly narrow view of what constitutes a protectable interest and of the showing required for inadequate representation in this setting.
- The court concluded that several denied applicants, including certain local governmental entities and timber-related parties, were entitled to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2).
- The court emphasized that environmental and public-lands litigation may practically threaten concrete local revenue and business interests, warranting intervention even when the federal agency defendant seeks the same general outcome.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 24(a)(2) requires: (1) a timely motion; (2) a sufficient interest in the litigation; (3) impairment of that interest as a practical matter; and (4) inadequate representation by existing parties.
- In public-law and environmental cases, Rule 24(a)(2) should be applied flexibly; courts should avoid rigidly restricting “interest” to exclude concrete economic and statutory-revenue stakes tied to challenged governmental action.
- Practical impairment is enough; an intervenor need not show formal preclusion to satisfy Rule 24(a)(2)’s impairment requirement.
- When a governmental party represents broad public interests that may include competing policy considerations, a proposed intervenor with more specific economic or local fiscal interests can satisfy the inadequate-representation element with a minimal showing that representation may be inadequate.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that local governments dependent on statutory timber-receipt revenues and timber-industry participants whose contracts and business prospects were directly affected by the challenged projects could intervene as of right because the litigation threatened practical impairment of concrete interests and the Forest Service’s broad public-interest mandate might not protect those narrower interests.


Kleissler v. U.S. Forest Serv., 157 F.3d 964 (3d Cir. 1998)