People of The State of New York v. Trump
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:23-cv-03773
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 50
People of New York v. Trump: Judge Hellerstein denied McKenzie’s request to intervene and send constitutional questions to the Second Circuit.
Lewis Brooks McKenzie’s attempt to join the case and seek certification of constitutional questions was rejected. The order also left the existing litigation between the People of The State of New York and Donald J. Trump unaffected by McKenzie’s proposed intervention.
What happened
In People of The State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, Lewis Brooks McKenzie asked to join the case so he could seek review of questions about the indictment against Donald J. Trump. McKenzie said he was a registered voter and wanted to raise issues concerning federal campaign law and voting rights.
The court denied McKenzie’s request to intervene, meaning to become a party in the case. The court said McKenzie identified no federal law giving him a right to intervene, no legally protected interest connected to the case, and no claim or defense sharing a legal or factual question with the case. The court also said that being a citizen, having the right to vote, and wanting to add views to Trump’s defenses did not satisfy the applicable rule.
Judge Hellerstein also ruled that McKenzie had no right to have constitutional questions sent to the Second Circuit because he could not intervene. The Clerk was directed to place McKenzie’s submitted papers on the docket.
The detailed version
- People of The State of New York v. Trump · No. 1:23-cv-03773
- Alvin Hellerstein
- June 14, 2023
Background
Lewis Brooks McKenzie moved to intervene in the case. Intervention is a procedure that allows a person who is not an original party to join a lawsuit. McKenzie sought intervention so he could ask the court to certify constitutional questions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The questions concerned the lawfulness of the indictment against Donald J. Trump and the relationship between state prosecution and federal campaign-finance law.
McKenzie’s filings described him as a registered voter and argued that his voting interests were connected to Trump’s candidacy and to the issues in the case. He also argued that existing parties did not adequately represent voters’ interests. The filings requested intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 and cited several federal statutes.
Court’s analysis
The court held that McKenzie had not satisfied the requirements for intervention under Rule 24. The court stated that McKenzie cited no federal statute giving him an unconditional right to intervene. It also found that he did not claim an interest relating to the property or transaction involved in the action that could be impaired by the case’s resolution. In addition, he did not state a claim or defense sharing a common legal or factual question with the main action.
The court specifically rejected McKenzie’s argument that his citizenship, right to vote, and desire to add his views to Trump’s defenses were enough to establish a right to intervene. Because McKenzie had no right to intervene, the court concluded that he also had no right to have questions certified to the Second Circuit.
Disposition
The court denied McKenzie’s motion to intervene. It also denied the requested certification of constitutional questions on the stated ground that McKenzie had no right to intervene. The court directed the Clerk to docket the papers McKenzie presented with the order. The order did not decide whether the underlying indictment was lawful.
Read the full 50-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.