Rodriguez-Williams v. Johnson

542 P.3d 632

2024 WY 16

Rachel RODRIGUEZ-WILLIAMS, House District Representative; Chip Neiman, House District Representative; and Right To Life of Wyoming, Inc., Appellants (Proposed Intervenors),

v.Danielle JOHNSON; Kathleen Dow; Gioannina Anthony, M.D.; Rene R. Hinkle, M.D.; Chelsea’s Fund; and Circle of Hope Healthcare d/b/a Wellspring Health Access, Appellees (Plaintiffs),andState of Wyoming; Mark Gordon, Governor of Wyoming; Bridget Hill, Attorney General for the State of Wyoming; Matthew Carr, Sheriff Teton County; Michelle Weber, Chief of Police, Town of Jackson, Wyoming, Appellees (Defendants).

S-23-0196

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

February 2, 2024

Appeal from the District Court of Teton County, The Honorable Melissa M. Owens, Judge

Representing Appellants (Proposed Intervenors) Rachel Rodriguez-Williams, House District Representative; Chip Neiman, House District Representative; and Right to Life of Wyoming, Inc.: Frederick J. Harrison, Frederick J. Harrison, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming; Denise Harle and Timothy Garrison, Alliance Defending Freedom, Scottsdale, Arizona. Argument by Mr. Garrison.

Representing Appellees (Plaintiffs) Danielle Johnson; Kathleen Dow; Giovannina Anthony, M.D.; Rene R. Hinkle, M.D.; Chelsea’s Fund; and Circle of Hope Healthcare d/b/a Wellspring Health Access: John H. Robinson and Marci C. Bramlet, Robinson Bramlet, LLC, Casper, Wyoming; Peter S. Modlin, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, San Francisco, California; Megan Cooney, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Irvine, California. Argument by Mr. Modlin.

Representing Appellees (Defendants) State of Wyoming; Mark Gordon, Governor of Wyoming; and Bridget Hill, Attorney General for the State of Wyoming: Jay Jerde, Special Assistant Attorney General.

Representing Appellee (Defendant) Matthew Carr, Sheriff Teton County: No appearance.

Representing Appellee (Defendant) Michelle Weber, Chief of Police, Town of Jackson, Wyoming: No appearance.

Before FOX, C.J., and KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.

FOX, Chief Justice.

[¶1] State Representatives Rachel Rodriguez-Williams and Chip Neiman, and Right to Life of Wyoming, Inc. (RTLW) (collectively the Proposed Intervenors) appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to intervene in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of two Wyoming laws restricting abortion. We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2] This appeal presents two issues:

1. Did the district court err in denying the Proposed Intervenors’ motion to intervene as of right?

2. Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying the Proposed Intervenors’ motion for permissive intervention?

FACTS

[¶3] In 2023, the Wyoming Legislature passed two laws restricting abortion. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 35-6-120-138; Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-6-139 (2023). On March 17, 2023, four individuals and two organizations (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against the State of Wyoming; Governor Mark Gordon; Attorney General Bridget Hill; Teton County Sheriff Matthew Carr; and Jackson Chief of Police Michelle Weber. Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the two laws and sought a permanent injunction enjoining their enforcement. Plaintiffs contemporaneously filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to enjoin enforcement of the laws pending the litigation’s outcome.

[¶4] On March 21, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. That day, the Attorney General’s Office, on behalf of the State, Governor Gordon, and Attorney General Hill (the State Defendants), submitted a nearly 100-page opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. On March 22, 2023, the district court entered the temporary restraining order. The challenged laws are therefore not being enforced pending final determination of this case.

[¶5] On April 4, 2023, the State Defendants answered Plaintiffs’ amended complaint. On April 6, 2023, the Proposed Intervenors filed a motion to intervene as of right; alternatively, they sought permissive intervention. Along with their motion to intervene, the Proposed Intervenors filed a proposed answer to the amended complaint, which in material respects mirrored the answer of the State Defendants. Plaintiffs opposed the motion to intervene. The State Defendants did not oppose the Proposed Intervenors’ intervention but objected to their expressed desire for an evidentiary hearing or trial. The State Defendants maintained that the constitutional challenge to the abortion laws presented purely legal questions that did not require taking evidence.

[¶6] The district court denied the motion to intervene. It found the Proposed Intervenors timely filed their motion but otherwise did not meet the requirements for intervention as of right. The court denied permissive intervention on grounds that the State Defendants adequately represented the interests of the Proposed Intervenors and the intervention would unduly delay and prejudice adjudication of the case. The Proposed Intervenors timely appealed to this Court.¹

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1, 2] [¶7] This Court reviews a ruling on the timeliness of a motion to intervene for an abuse of discretion. Int. of EHD, 2017 WY 134, ¶ 14, 405 P.3d 222, 226 (Wyo. 2017) (quoting Hirshberg v. Coon, 2012 WY 5, ¶ 9, 268 P.3d 258, 260 (Wyo. 2012)). Aside from the question of its timeliness, intervention as of right presents a question of law that we review de novo. Id.

[3] [¶8] We give deference to a district court’s denial of permissive intervention and review that ruling for an abuse of discretion. Hirshberg, 2012 WY 5, ¶ 9, 268 P.3d at 261 (quoting Concerned Citizens of Spring Creek Ranch v. Tips Up, L.L.C., 2008 WY 64, ¶¶ 11-12, 185 P.3d 34, 38 (Wyo. 2008)); see also Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. Gunter, 2007 WY 151, ¶ 9, 167 P.3d 645, 649 (Wyo. 2007) ("We review a denial of a motion for permissive intervention for an abuse of discretion, and our review is particularly deferential.") (citing Masinter v. Markstein, 2002 WY 64, ¶ 14, 45 P.3d 237, 242 (Wyo. 2002)); Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass’n, Inc. v. N.M. Pub. Regul. Comm’n, 787 F.3d 1068, 1075 (10th Cir. 2015) (agreeing that "decisions holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying permissive intervention are predictably rare").

DISCUSSION

[4] [¶9] We have summarized the W.R.C.P. 24(a)(2) requirements for intervention as of right as follows:

First, the applicant must claim an interest related to the property nr transaction which is the subject of the action.

Second, the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest. Third, there must be a showing that the applicant’s interest will not be adequately represented by the existing parties. Fourth, the application for intervention must be timely.

Int. of EHD, 2017 WY 134, ¶ 12, 405 P.3d at 225-26 (quoting State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Colley, 871 P.2d 191, 194 (Wyo. 1994)). "An applicant who fails to meet any of the conditions of W.R.C.P. 24(a)(2) is not permitted to intervene as of right." Halliburton, 2007 WY 151, ¶ 6, 167 P.3d at 648 (cleaned up) (quoting State Farm, 871 P.2d at 194).²

I. Became the Proposed Intervenors do not have a significant protectable interest in the litigation, the district court did not err in denying their motion to intervene as of right.

[5, 6] [¶10] To satisfy Rule 24(a)(2)’s interest requirement, a proposed intervenor must show "a significant protectable interest." Tips Up, 2008 WY 64, ¶ 17, 185 P.3d at 40 (citing Platte Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Basin Elec, Power Coop., 638 P.2d 1276, 1279 (Wyo. 1982)). "A significant protectable interest is distinguished from a merely contingent interest, an interest shared by members of the public at large, or a mere concern in the outcome." Id. (citing Halliburton, 2007 WY 151, ¶ 6, 167 P.3d at 648); see also Allard v. Frizzell, 536 F.2d 1332, 1334 (10th Cir. 1976) (upholding denial on ground that movants had "no requisite specific interest, and none other than that asserted by the public generally").

A. RTLW does not have a significant protectable interest in the litigation.

[7] [¶11] RTLW claims the following concerning its interest in the challenge to the abortion laws:

Right to Life of Wyoming’s core purpose is to educate the public on the value of human life—including the harms of abortion—and to advocate for laws that protect pregnant women and their unborn children. All of the organization’s resources are dedicated to this mission. Indeed, Right to Life of Wyoming devoted substantial time, funds, and other resources in specifically lobbying and advocating for the statutes challenged in this case. Thus, its interest is greatly distinguishable from members of the public. The fates of these statutes are mission-critical to Right to Life of Wyoming’s efficacy.

[8] [¶12] We do not question that RTLW has expended great effort and resources in its campaign against abortion and in favor of the legislation at issue in this case. We disagree, however, that these advocacy efforts distinguish RTLW’s interests from the policy concerns held by members of the public at large. The persuasive weight of authority holds that advocating for a policy and lobbying for legislation to enact that policy does not give an individual or entity a protectable interest in a legal challenge to the subsequently enacted law.

[¶13] For example, in Keith v. Daley, the Illinois Pro-Life Coalition (IPC), a lobbying organization, sought to intervene in a suit challenging the constitutionality of an Illinois statute regulating abortion. 764 F.2d 1265, 1267 (7th Cir. 1985), cert, denied, 474 U.S. 980, 106 S.Ct. 383, 88 L.Ed.2d 336 (1985). Like RTLW, IPC claimed an interest based on its advocacy for unborn children and its lobbying efforts in support of the challenged laws. Id. It asserted "that its Very existence is intertwined with its ability to promote this type of legislation and to insure that such laws are adequately defended if...