Demarcating Appellate Rights: The Imperative of Formal Intervention for Non-Parties

Introduction

In the recent opinion delivered by Circuit Judge Julia Smith Gibbons on March 11, 2025, for the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the court addressed the contentious issue surrounding the appellate rights of the Coalition to Protect Michigan Resources (“Coalition”). The case, styled United States of America v. State of Michigan (and associated Indian communities and agencies), involves the entry of the 2023 Great Lakes Fishing Decree—a negotiated agreement initiated by the Stipulating Parties (including the United States, Michigan, and several Native American tribes) intended to manage and regulate fishing activities in the Great Lakes.

Central to the controversy is the Coalition’s attempt to challenge aspects of the decree without formally intervening as a party. Although it had participated as an amicus curiae with a longstanding history of filing objections, the Coalition’s failure to secure formal party status has now resulted in the appellate dismissal. This commentary explores the new legal principle established in the Judgment regarding the strict adherence to the intervention requirements for appellate jurisdiction.

Summary of the Judgment

The district court entered the 2023 Decree despite objections from the Coalition, finding that the decree balanced the interests of tribal treaty rights with the need for fishery conservation. The Coalition, having filed numerous objections and relying on its longstanding status as amicus curiae, sought to appeal the entry of the decree. However, the Sixth Circuit held that only parties to the litigation are entitled to appeal an adverse decision. The court reiterated that for a non-party (including amici) to secure appellate rights, it must properly intervene by complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. Consequently, since the Coalition never filed a timely motion to intervene and did not satisfy the requirements for either mandatory or permissive intervention, its appeal—and the subsequent cross-appeal by the United States—was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In reaching its decision, the court relied heavily on several pivotal precedents:

• MARINO v. ORTIZ, 484 U.S. 301: This case was cited to stress that only parties to an action have standing to appeal, thereby setting the foundational principle that non-parties must either be granted party status or successfully move to intervene in order to challenge a decision.
• BENDER v. WILLIAMSPORT AREA SCHOOL DISTrict, 475 U.S. 534: The court noted that those who do not timely apply for intervention and formalize their role cannot subsequently claim appellate rights, reinforcing that formal pleading is necessary for the pursuit of an appeal.
• CITY OF CLEVELAND v. OHIO, 508 F.3d 827: Although the Coalition argued that this decision conferred a de facto party status to non-parties, the court distinguished that scenario by highlighting that City of Cleveland’s standing was due to its substantive involvement and direct effect on the controversy – conditions not met by the Coalition.
• DEVLIN v. SCARDELLETTI, 536 U.S. 1: The Coalition also cited Devlin to suggest its de facto status; however, the court underscored that Devlin was strictly applicable to class-action contexts under Rule 23(b)(1) and did not extend protection to an amicus curiae without formal intervention.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s legal reasoning centered on the following points:

• Strict Adherence to Intervention Requirements: The opinion reiterates that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, only those who have timely and adequately filed a motion to intervene are accorded the legal standing necessary to pursue an appeal. The court pointed out that the Coalition repeatedly attempted to intervene over decades yet failed to meet the threshold for party status.
• Role of Amicus Curiae: The Judgment clarifies that an amicus curiae’s role is inherently narrow and non-adversarial. Even though the Coalition submitted objections, its actions did not elevate its status to that of a party. The opinion emphasizes that there is no judicial "shortcut" that transforms an amicus’s participation into full litigating party status.
• Function of Appellate Jurisdiction: The court maintained that limiting appeal rights to recognized parties is vital to ensuring a structured and orderly progression of litigation. Allowing non-parties to bypass procedural requirements would undermine the integrity of the appellate process.

Impact on Future Cases

The ruling has several important implications:

• Reaffirmation of Procedural Prerequisites: Future cases will benefit from a reaffirmed principle requiring non-parties—regardless of their historical involvement—to comply strictly with intervention rules before seeking an appeal.
• Predictability in Appellate Hearings: By underscoring that only properly designated parties may appeal adverse decisions, appellate courts can better manage the caseload and prevent jurisdictional challenges that delay justice.
• Clarification of Amicus Curiae Status: The decision serves as a clear reminder that while amicuses can provide valuable input, their involvement is limited in scope, and they may not assume the procedural rights granted to formal parties.

Complex Concepts Simplified

To aid understanding, several legal concepts central to this decision are simplified as follows:

• Intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24: This rule allows non-parties with a significant interest in a case to join the litigation. However, there are strict criteria that must be met, including showing that the party’s interest cannot be adequately represented by the existing parties.
• Amicus Curiae: Literally “friend of the court,” an amicus curiae is someone who offers their perspective on a case without being a primary party to the controversy. This role is advisory and does not come with the right to appeal a decision unless the amicus formalizes its position via the intervention process.
• De Facto Party Status: Even if a non-party participates extensively, it does not become a “real party” unless it has followed the formal legal procedures to intervene and be recognized by the court as having a direct stake in the outcome.

Conclusion

In summary, the Judgment solidifies a critical legal precedent: non-parties, including longstanding amici curiae, must strictly adhere to the procedural requirements mandated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 before they are entitled to appellate rights. The Coalition’s failure to timely and effectively seek intervention barred it from appealing the 2023 Great Lakes Fishing Decree.

This decision reinforces the integrity of the appellate process by ensuring that only those who have formally secured party status may challenge judicial decisions. As such, future litigants and amici are reminded of the necessity to follow established procedural channels—a reminder that upholding these formalities is essential for maintaining structure and order in the justice system.

Ultimately, the Judgment serves as an important checkpoint in delineating the limits of appellate rights and clarifying the role of amicus curiae within complex litigation, thereby guiding future cases falling within this nuanced realm of procedural law.