,
7 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
@alahav 1/. Fascinating issue! Putting aside the merits, this is exactly the kind of case where a nationwide injunction is inappropriate. The rights at issue are divisible. The court could’ve easily issued a plaintiff-oriented injunction protecting only rights of parties before it.
@alahav 2/ In terms of appeal, any beneficiary who stands to lose benefits if the statute goes unenforceable would have standing. Same for public interest groups. State standing is a little more debatable but good arguments can be made for it under precedent.
@alahav 3/ A denial of a motion to intervene is appealable, if the district court rules on it. A party could try filing a notice of appeal along with a motion to intervene, with the motion explaining intervention is for the purpose of filing that notice and litigating the appeal.
@alahav 4/If a litigant files motion to intervene & notice of appeal, and dist ct doesn’t rule until after appellate deadline, I don’t know if NOA filing date relates back to when it was submitted (before the intervenor was officially a party) or is deemed to be when the motion’s granted
@alahav 5/ If there is an issue with jurisdictional appellate deadline, a putative intervenor could try to mandamus the district court to rule on the motion.
@alahav 6/ When DoJ refused to defend constitutionality of provisons of the VA reform law passed a few years ago in the Federal Circuit, whose ruling would have national impact, I represented coalition of 12 veterans groups that intervened to defend the law on appeal.
@alahav 7/ The federal circuit allowed intervention and ultimately struck down some (but not all) of the challenged provisions.
