Affirmation of Denial to Intervene in Treaty Rights Litigation: United States v. Michigan

Affirmation of Denial to Intervene in Treaty Rights Litigation: United States v. Michigan

Introduction

The case of United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, Bay Mills Indian Community; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa Chippewa Indians; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians; Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians v. State of Michigan, et al., adjudicated in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in 2005, represents a significant legal confrontation spanning over three decades. This litigation centers on the interpretation and enforcement of the 1836 Treaty of Washington, specifically addressing whether five Indian tribes retain usufructuary rights to hunt and fish in ceded territories and Great Lakes waters. The appellants in this phase—Michigan Fisheries Resource Conservation Coalition (MFRCC), Stuart Cheney, Robert Andrus, and the Walloon Lake Trust and Conservancy—sought to intervene in the ongoing litigation but were denied by both the district court and affirmed by the appellate court.

Summary of the Judgment

The appellate court reviewed the district court's decision to deny the appellants' motion to intervene under both Rule 24(a) (Intervention of Right) and Rule 24(b) (Permissive Intervention) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court affirmed the district court's denial, holding that the proposed intervenors failed to demonstrate that their interests were inadequately represented by the State of Michigan. The appellants contended that the state's broader public duties did not align with their specific interests as private property owners, particularly concerning the regulation of usufructuary rights on inland lands. However, the court found their arguments insufficient, noting that the current phase of litigation was narrowly focused on the existence of inland treaty rights, a matter adequately represented by the state's existing legal posture. Consequently, the appellate court upheld the district court's decision to deny the motion to intervene.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court referenced several key precedents to ground its decision:

  • GRUTTER v. BOLLINGER, 188 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 1999): Established the four-factor test for intervention of right under Rule 24(a).
  • GRUBBS v. NORRIS, 870 F.2d 343 (6th Cir. 1989): Reinforced the necessity for proposed intervenors to meet all criteria for intervention of right.
  • Meyer Goldberg, Inc. v. Goldberg, 717 F.2d 290 (6th Cir. 1983): Clarified the burden on applicants to demonstrate inadequate representation.
  • BRADLEY v. MILLIKEN, 828 F.2d 1186 (6th Cir. 1987): Discussed the presumption of adequate representation when proposed intervenors share the same objectives as existing parties.
  • MICHIGAN STATE AFL-CIO v. MILLER, 103 F.3d 1240 (6th Cir. 1997): Outlined the standards for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b).
  • PURNELL v. CITY OF AKRON, 925 F.2d 941 (6th Cir. 1991): Emphasized that denial of permissive intervention should only be reversed for clear abuse of discretion.

These precedents collectively guided the court in evaluating both the procedural and substantive claims of the proposed intervenors.

Legal Reasoning

The court meticulously applied the four-factor test from Grutter to assess Rule 24(a) intervention of right:

  1. Timeliness: The proposed intervenors filed their motion six months after the state's counterclaim, rendering it untimely.
  2. Substantial Legal Interest: While the intervenors asserted an interest in protecting private property rights, the court found it closely aligned with the state's broader public interest in regulating fishing and hunting.
  3. Impairment of Interest: The intervenors failed to convincingly demonstrate that their ability to protect their interests would be impeded without intervention.
  4. Inadequate Representation: The court observed that the state's existing legal strategies sufficiently covered the narrow issues at hand, negating the necessity for additional representation.

Regarding permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), the court noted that even if the motion were timely and shared common questions of law or fact, allowing intervention would complicate the narrow focus of the current litigation, potentially leading to undue delay and prejudice.

Impact

This judgment underscores the stringent standards applied to motions for intervention, particularly in cases with a long procedural history and narrowly defined litigation phases. By affirming the denial, the court reaffirmed that existing parties, especially state entities with broad public mandates, are presumed to adequately represent related interests unless a clear divergence is demonstrated. This decision may influence future attempts by organizations to intervene in similar treaty rights cases, emphasizing the need for timely and distinct claims or defenses separate from those of the original parties.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Usufructuary Rights

Usufructuary rights refer to the legal rights granted to individuals or groups to use and derive profit from property owned by another party, provided that the property itself is not damaged or altered.

Intervention of Right vs. Permissive Intervention

Intervention of Right (Rule 24(a)): Allows non-parties to join a lawsuit if they have a substantial interest in the case's subject matter and may be adversely affected by the litigation's outcome. It requires meeting specific criteria to ensure their inclusion is essential for justice.
Permissive Intervention (Rule 24(b)): Permits non-parties to join a lawsuit if their claims or defenses share common questions of law or fact with the main action. It is more discretionary and focuses on the efficiency and fairness of the court process.

Declaratory Judgment

A declaratory judgment is a court's official decision that determines the rights, duties, or obligations of each party in a legal dispute, without ordering any specific action or awarding damages.

Conclusion

The appellate court's affirmation in United States v. Michigan reinforces the high threshold required for parties to successfully intervene in ongoing litigation. By meticulously applying the established legal standards, the court ensured that only those with distinct and uncompromised interests could alter the composition of the legal battle. This decision not only resolves the immediate contention regarding the appellants' attempt to join the case but also sets a clear precedent for future motions for intervention, highlighting the importance of timeliness, distinct legal interests, and the sufficiency of existing party representation in complex treaty rights litigation.

Case Details

Year: 2005
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Judge(s)

James Leo Ryan

Attorney(S)

ARGUED: Stephen O. Schultz, Foster, Swift, Collins Smith, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellants. Kathryn E. Kovacs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Marc D. Slonim, Ziontz, Chestnut, Varnell, Berley Slonim, Seattle, Washington, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Peter R. Albertins, Foster, Swift, Collins Smith, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellants. Kathryn E. Kovacs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Marc D. Slonim, Brian C. Gruber, Ziontz, Chestnut, Varnell, Berley Slonim, Seattle, Washington, Kathryn L. Tierney, Bay Mills Indian Community, Brimley, Michigan, Aaron C. Schlehuber, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, Bruce R. Greene, Greene, Meyer McElroy, Boulder, Colorado, John F. Petoskey, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa Chippewa Indians, Peshawbestown, Michigan, William Rastetter, Olson, Bzdok Howard, Traverse City, Michigan, William J. Brooks, Manistee, Michigan, James A. Bransky, Traverse City, Michigan, Allie Greenleaf Maldonado, Harbor Springs, Michigan, Marie Shamraj, Christopher D. Dobyns, Office of the Attorney General of Michigan, Lansaing, Michigan, for Appellees.

Comments