## Facts

- Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, Inc., a nonprofit provider of family-planning services in St. Paul, decided in early 1976 to offer first-trimester abortion services at a new facility.
- Planned Parenthood planned to purchase and use a building at 1965 Ford Parkway for offices, training, research, and a medical clinic including first-trimester abortions.
- Area residents opposed the proposed clinic.
- The St. Paul City Council enacted an emergency ordinance imposing a six-month moratorium on construction of “separate abortion facilities and other like facilities,” pending a study of potential special zoning restrictions.
- Planned Parenthood sued city officials in federal court, alleging the moratorium was unconstitutional and seeking injunctive and monetary relief.
- The district court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the moratorium.
- Citizens for Community Action (a neighborhood association) and nearby property owners moved to intervene, citing concerns about property values and neighborhood health, welfare, and safety.
- The district court denied intervention of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2).
- Although the moratorium expired, the dispute continued due to requests for permanent relief and damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the moratorium ordinance.
2. Whether the neighborhood association and nearby property owners were entitled to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) based on interest, potential impairment, and inadequate representation.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the preliminary injunction, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion.
- The court reversed the denial of intervention as of right, holding the district court erred in excluding the neighborhood association and similarly situated property owners.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings with intervenors participating as defendants.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion; it may be warranted where serious constitutional questions are presented and the moving party shows likely irreparable harm absent relief.
- Government measures that specifically delay or obstruct access to first-trimester abortion services raise substantial constitutional concerns and require strong justification.
- Rule 24(a)(2) intervention of right requires: (1) a direct, protectable interest related to the action; (2) a risk that disposition may practically impair the applicant’s ability to protect that interest; and (3) inadequate representation by existing parties.
- Neighborhood associations and adjacent property owners may have cognizable interests (including property-value and localized community concerns) sufficient for Rule 24(a)(2) intervention.
- A municipality’s defense of an ordinance does not necessarily adequately represent private parties where the governmental and private interests are not identical.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld preliminary relief blocking a targeted, temporary moratorium on abortion facilities while requiring that affected neighborhood residents be allowed to intervene as of right because their property and community interests could be affected and were not adequately represented by the city.


Planned Parenthood of Minn., Inc. v. Citizens for Cmty. Action, 558 F.2d 861 (8th Cir. 1977)