Stuart v. Huff

706 F.3d 345 (4th Cir. 2013)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

North Carolina enacted the Woman's Right to Know Act. Ps filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the Act violates the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of physicians and their patients, along with an injunction preventing enforcement of the Act. Ps filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. North Carolina enacted the Woman's Right to Know Act. Ps filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the Act violates the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of physicians and their patients, along with an injunction preventing enforcement of the Act. Ps filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Huff (Ds) defendants in the underlying suit-a number of state officials represented by the North Carolina Attorney General-filed their opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction. At a hearing on the motion, the Attorney General argued that the Act should be upheld under Casey. The Attorney General did not introduce factual evidence in support of the Act, choosing instead to rely on the legal arguments from Casey. Appellants motioned to intervene pursuant to 24(a), and, alternatively, Rule 24(b). The court noted that ''when the party seeking intervention has the same ultimate objective as a party to the suit, a presumption arises that its interests are adequately represented,'' which can only be rebutted by a showing of ''adversity of interest, collusion, or nonfeasance.'' The court held that appellants and the existing defendants share 'precisely the same goal: to uphold the Act as constitutionally permissible.'

It also explained that because D was a government agency, a 'very strong showing of inadequacy' is needed to warrant intervention. The court held that a disagreement on tactical decisions does not amount to the necessary showing of adversity of interest, collusion, or nonfeasance. Under 24(b)(3), the court denied permissive intervention because Appellants would 'complicate the discovery process and consume additional resources of the court and the parties.' This appeal resulted. Appellants argue that the burden of demonstrating inadequate representation ought only to be a minimal one.