Takeaway
In short, this case holds that a person whose benefits are threatened may have a protectable interest, but cannot intervene as of right when the live claims do not cover all of its objectives and existing parties adequately defend the shared objective.
After Rice v. Cayetano held that limiting elections for trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) to Hawaiians and native Hawaiians violated the Fifteenth Amendment, Arakaki and other plaintiffs sued Hawaii and several state agencies. They challenged benefits administered by OHA, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL), and the Hawaiian Homes Commission (HHC) as race-based preferences that violated equal protection. They also asserted that the State’s administration of the public-land trust created by § 5(f) of the Hawaii Admission Act breached duties owed to trust beneficiaries.
Josiah Hoohuli and other native Hawaiians, who held or sought Hawaiian homestead leases, moved to intervene as defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). They sought both to preserve benefits for native Hawaiians and to argue that benefits should be restricted to native Hawaiians rather than extended to the broader class of Hawaiians. They also wanted to raise the argument that native Hawaiians should receive tribal recognition and that their benefits should therefore receive the more deferential review described in Morton v. Mancari.
Before the intervention motion was decided, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ § 5(f) public-land-trust claims for lack of standing. It then denied Hoohuli intervention as of right and permissive intervention. The court concluded that the surviving taxpayer equal-protection claims could threaten Hoohuli’s benefits, but that the State, its agencies, and already-admitted native-Hawaiian lessee intervenors adequately represented Hoohuli’s interest in defending those benefits. Hoohuli appealed only the denial of intervention as of right.
Issue #1
Whether Hoohuli could intervene as of right to litigate the plaintiffs’ dismissed § 5(f) public-land-trust claim.
Holding
No. Once the district court dismissed that claim and the plaintiffs did not appeal its dismissal, it was no longer a subject of the action in which Hoohuli could intervene.
Reasoning
Rule 24(a)(2) requires a proposed intervenor to have a significantly protectable interest related to the property or transaction that remains the subject of the lawsuit. A court may assess intervention in light of a case as narrowed by subsequent orders.
The plaintiffs’ § 5(f) claim had been dismissed for lack of standing before the district court ruled on Hoohuli’s intervention request. Because no live public-land-trust claim remained in this case, its disposition could not impair Hoohuli’s ability to protect an interest in that claim.
Price v. Akaka did not change the result. Although Price supported a trust beneficiary’s standing to bring an independent action enforcing § 5(f), standing to file a separate suit does not itself establish a right to intervene in an unrelated or no-longer-pending claim. The court expressed no view on whether Hoohuli could bring its own suit seeking to restrict benefits to native Hawaiians.
Issue #2
Whether Hoohuli had a significantly protectable interest, and a risk of impairment, in the surviving equal-protection challenge to Hawaiian and native-Hawaiian benefits.
Holding
Yes as to Hoohuli’s interest in continuing to receive benefits, but no as to its separate interest in excluding non-native Hawaiians from eligibility.
Reasoning
Hoohuli’s members were current or prospective Hawaiian homestead lessees. If the plaintiffs succeeded in invalidating the challenged benefit programs, Hoohuli’s members could lose benefits they received or sought. That direct stake in the continued receipt of benefits was legally protectable and sufficiently related to the equal-protection claims.
The same threatened loss established practical impairment. A judgment for the plaintiffs could prevent Hoohuli from preserving the native-Hawaiian benefits at issue, satisfying Rule 24(a)(2)’s impairment requirement for that interest.
Hoohuli’s asserted interest in preventing dilution by limiting benefits to native Hawaiians was different. The plaintiffs sought to invalidate benefits for both Hawaiians and native Hawaiians; they did not seek to decide which of those groups should receive benefits. Hoohuli could not use intervention to add a distinct claim that benefits should be restricted to the narrower native-Hawaiian class.
The court rejected the suggestion that a broad conception of a protectable interest eliminated the need for a relationship between the intervenor’s interest and the claims actually pending. Even under Ninth Circuit precedent allowing interests protected by laws beyond the statute directly sued upon, Rule 24 still requires that the pending litigation actually affect the asserted interest.
Issue #3
Whether existing defendants adequately represented Hoohuli’s protectable interest in preserving benefits for native Hawaiians.
Holding
Yes. Hoohuli did not overcome the presumption that Hawaii, its agencies, and the existing native-Hawaiian lessee intervenors adequately represented its interest.
Reasoning
A proposed intervenor bears only a minimal initial burden to show that representation may be inadequate, but a presumption of adequacy arises when the applicant and an existing party share the same ultimate objective. A particularly compelling showing is required when a state represents citizens whose interest aligns with its own.
Hoohuli and the State defendants had the same ultimate objective: defeating the plaintiffs’ challenge and preserving benefits for native Hawaiians. Hawaii and its agencies had statutory and state-constitutional obligations to administer and defend programs benefiting native Hawaiians, reinforcing the presumption of adequate representation.
Hoohuli argued that the State would not press its preferred defense: that the federal government’s failure to recognize native Hawaiians as a tribe was discriminatory and that tribal recognition would permit rational-basis review under Morton v. Mancari. The court concluded that this concern did not show inadequate representation because counsel for the State agencies stated that they would raise all arguments necessary to defend the benefits, and no conflict prevented them from advancing that argument if needed.
The presence of the State Council of Hawaiian Homestead Associations, an already-admitted intervenor representing native-Hawaiian lessees, further confirmed that Hoohuli’s interests were represented. Rule 24 does not require admitting every group that shares a substantially identical goal merely because it prefers a different litigation strategy.