The New York Immigration Coalition v. Trump
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-05781
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In New York Immigration Coalition v. Trump, Judge Furman denied Heghmann’s request to join the case and attend its conference.
Robert A. Heghmann’s requests to intervene in the lawsuit and participate in the scheduled conference were denied.
What happened
New York Immigration Coalition v. Trump challenges a presidential memorandum directing that undocumented immigrants be excluded from the census count used to allocate congressional seats among states. Robert A. Heghmann asked to join the lawsuit under two federal court rules.
Heghmann argued that an earlier decision supported a so-called “Horsey Rule” and that, because he had represented a person in that earlier litigation, he was uniquely qualified to present those issues. The court rejected those arguments, stating that the earlier decision did not clearly establish such a rule, was not binding on this court, and did not show that the existing parties would inadequately protect his interests.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied Heghmann’s motion to intervene and also denied his request to participate in the conference scheduled for August 5, 2020. The clerk was directed to terminate the two docket entries associated with those requests.
The detailed version
- The New York Immigration Coalition v. Trump · No. 1:20-cv-05781
- Jesse Furman
- Aug. 4, 2020
Background
The lawsuit challenges the President’s January 21, 2020 memorandum directing the Secretary of Commerce to exclude undocumented immigrants from the decennial census count used to apportion congressional seats to states. Robert A. Heghmann moved to intervene, meaning to become a participant in the lawsuit, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) and 24(b)(2). He sought to intervene only in this case, not in related litigation identified in the opinion as State of New York v. Trump, No. 20-cv-5770 (JMF).
Intervention standards
The court explained that intervention as of right requires an applicant to show that the application was timely, that the applicant has an interest in the case, that the interest could be impaired by the case’s outcome, and that the existing parties do not adequately protect that interest. The court stated that substantially similar factors apply to permissive intervention.
Reasons for denying intervention
The court identified at least three reasons Heghmann’s motion failed. First, it was unclear whether the “Horsey Rule” on which he relied existed. The decision he cited did not appear to announce such a rule; instead, it reaffirmed an earlier grant of summary judgment dismissing the claims of Heghmann’s client. Second, even if Heghmann’s interpretation were correct, that decision came from a three-judge district court in another district, not from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and therefore was not binding on this court. Third, Heghmann’s only argument that the existing parties would not adequately protect his interests was that he had represented Wade Horsey in the earlier litigation and was therefore uniquely qualified to present the same issues. The court found that argument insufficient, stating that Heghmann was not in a better position than the parties or the court to interpret or apply the earlier decision.
Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered that Heghmann’s motion to intervene was DENIED. The court also DENIED his request to participate in the conference scheduled for August 5, 2020. The clerk was directed to terminate docket entries 38 and 39.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.