Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College , 807 F.3d 472 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •           United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit
    No. 15-1823
    STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.,
    Plaintiff, Appellee,
    v.
    PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE (HARVARD CORPORATION),
    Defendant, Appellee;
    SARAH COLE; FADHAL MOORE; ARJINI KUMARI NAWAL; ITZEL VASQUEZ-
    RODRIGUEZ; KEYANNA WIGGLESWORTH; M.B.; K.C.; Y.D.; G.E.; A.G.;
    I.G.; R.H.; J.L.; R.S.,
    Movants, Appellants.
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
    [Hon. Allison D. Burroughs, U.S. District Judge]
    Before
    Howard, Chief Judge,
    Lynch and Kayatta, Circuit Judges.
    Taylor Owings, with whom Lawrence E. Culleen, Nancy L.
    Perkins, Steven L. Mayer, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Jon M. Greenbaum,
    Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Iván Espinoza-
    Madrigal, and Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Economic
    Justice, were on brief, for movants-appellants.
    Seth P. Waxman, with whom Felicia H. Ellsworth, Eric F.
    Fletcher, Paul R.Q. Wolfson, Daniel Winik, and Wilmer Cutler
    Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, were on brief, for defendant-appellee.
    Patrick Strawbridge, with whom Consovoy McCarthy Park
    PLLC, Paul M. Sanford, and Burns & Levinson LLP, were on brief,
    for plaintiff-appellee.
    December 9, 2015
    KAYATTA, Circuit Judge.           This appeal arises out of a
    lawsuit brought by an organization that calls itself Students For
    Fair   Admissions,      Inc.   ("SFFA")     challenging     Harvard     College's
    consideration of race in its undergraduate admissions decisions.
    An opposing group of current and prospective Harvard students
    ("Students") who claim to be benefited by the school's current
    practice sought to intervene, over the objection of both parties,
    in order to advocate "vigorously" for the defeat of SFFA's claims.
    The district court denied Students' motion to intervene, instead
    granting Students leave to file amicus briefs.                 Students for Fair
    Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 
    308 F.R.D. 39
    , 52–53 (D. Mass. 2015).             Students now appeal, arguing
    that the district court either committed an error of law or abused
    its discretion in denying their motion to intervene.                      For the
    following reasons, we affirm the district court's ruling.
    I.   Background
    The   underlying      lawsuit     in    which   Students      seek   to
    intervene commenced on November 17, 2014, when SFFA filed a
    complaint    with     the   district      court     alleging     that   Harvard's
    undergraduate       admissions    policy      is    racially     and    ethnically
    discriminatory, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
    of   1964   and   the   Equal    Protection        Clause   of   the    Fourteenth
    Amendment. Harvard admits, indeed proclaims, that it does consider
    an applicant's race, among many other factors, in deciding whether
    - 3 -
    to admit the applicant.           Harvard says that it considers race in
    order   to      increase   "student     body    diversity,    including      racial
    diversity."       It denies that this consideration is unlawful.
    During the early stages of discovery, Students filed a
    motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) and (b),
    seeking    to    intervene   in   this    lawsuit    either    by   right    or   by
    permission of the court.          The district court denied the motion to
    intervene, holding that although Students' motion was "timely,"
    Students failed to satisfy the remaining requirements of Rule 24(a)
    and (b).     Students do not appeal the denial of their motion for
    permissive intervention under Rule 24(b).             Rather, they focus this
    appeal on the district court's denial of their motion to intervene
    by right under Rule 24(a)(2).
    II.    Analysis
    Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) states:
    On timely motion, the court must permit anyone
    to intervene who . . . claims an interest
    relating to the property or transaction that
    is the subject of the action, and is so
    situated that disposing of the action may as
    a practical matter impair or impede the
    movant's ability to protect its interest,
    unless existing parties adequately represent
    that interest.
    Successful      intervention       by   right    under   this     rule
    requires intervenors to demonstrate that (1) their motion is
    timely; (2) they have an interest related to the property or
    transaction that forms the foundation of the ongoing action;
    - 4 -
    (3) the disposition of the action threatens to impair or impede
    their ability to protect their interest; and (4) no existing party
    adequately represents their interest.            Ungar v. Arafat, 
    634 F.3d 46
    , 50 (1st Cir. 2011).       Failure to satisfy any one of the four
    requirements defeats intervention by right.              
    Id. at 51
    .
    Applying these requirements calls for discretion in
    making "a series of judgment calls--a balancing of factors that
    arise in highly idiosyncratic factual settings."             
    Id.
         While "the
    district court's discretion [in the context of intervention by
    right] is somewhat more circumscribed than in the context of
    intervention generally," Negrón-Almeda v. Santiago, 
    528 F.3d 15
    ,
    22 (1st Cir. 2008), we will only reverse "[i]f the district court
    either fails to follow the general recipe provided in Rule 24(a)(2)
    or reaches a plainly incorrect decision."           Ungar, 
    634 F.3d at 51
    .
    Rather than reviewing blow-by-blow each challenge to the
    district court's opinion, we train our analysis on the district
    court's finding that Students have failed to show that no "existing
    part[y] adequately represent[s] [Students'] interest."                  Fed. R.
    Civ. P. 24(a)(2).       In conducting this analysis, we begin with a
    recognition    that    Students'   burden   of    establishing        inadequate
    representation "should be treated as minimal" and can be satisfied
    by   showing   "that   representation      of    [the]    interest     'may   be'
    inadequate."    Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of Am., 
    404 U.S. 528
    , 538 n.10 (1972) (emphasis added).              On the other hand, we
    - 5 -
    require    putative         intervenors    to   produce    "something     more   than
    speculation as to the purported inadequacy" of representation.
    Moosehead Sanitary Dist. v. S.G. Phillips Corp., 
    610 F.2d 49
    , 54
    (1st Cir. 1979).
    In trying to sustain even this minimal burden, Students
    buckle at the outset.           The interests they claim (increasing their
    chances    of   gaining       admission    and/or     being    educated   "among    a
    critical      mass     of    students     who   can   relate    to   their   racial
    identities") lead them to adopt four-square Harvard's goals of
    "defend[ing] Harvard's right to consider race and [] defeat[ing]
    SFFA's request for declaratory judgment."1 Given such a congruence
    in   goals,     this    court     presumes      adequate   representation.         B.
    Fernández & Hnos., Inc. v. Kellogg USA, Inc., 
    440 F.3d 541
    , 546
    (1st Cir. 2006); Daggett v. Comm'n on Governmental Ethics &
    Election Practices, 
    172 F.3d 104
    , 111 (1st Cir. 1999); Moosehead,
    
    610 F.2d at 54
    .        Adding heft to that presumption in this case are
    the facts that Harvard has the resources necessary to litigate the
    case, that it has retained counsel of whom Students offer no
    criticism, and that it has publicly characterized the lawsuit
    1 Because we affirm the district court's denial of Students' motion
    to intervene based on the fact that Harvard will provide adequate
    representation, we need not decide whether Students' interests in
    this case are "significantly protectable." Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H.
    v. Patch, 
    136 F.3d 197
    , 205 (1st Cir. 1998) (quoting Donaldson v.
    United States, 
    400 U.S. 517
    , 531 (1971)).
    - 6 -
    through its highest officials as a threat to its "most fundamental
    values."
    With that factually reinforced presumption in mind, we
    next consider Students' specific arguments for why we should
    nevertheless    find   as   a   matter    of    law    that    Students    raise
    "sufficient doubt about the adequacy" of Harvard's representation
    in pursuing the shared goal of preserving Harvard's ability to
    consider an applicant's race in its admissions decisions.                      B.
    Fernández, 
    440 F.3d at 547
     (quoting Trbovich, 
    404 U.S. at 538
    ).
    We undertake that consideration "in light of the issues at stake
    in the particular litigation", Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H. v. Patch,
    
    136 F.3d 197
    , 208 (1st Cir. 1998), as they reveal themselves based
    on a "commonsense view of the overall litigation."                  
    Id.
     at 204
    (citing United States v. Hooker Chems. & Plastics Corp., 
    749 F.2d 968
    , 983 (2d Cir. 1984)).
    Students    point    to    what     they    claim   is   "Harvard's
    unwillingness to recognize the need for race-conscious admissions
    policies to balance the adverse effect of other admissions criteria
    and practices . . . like the legacy policy," referring to Harvard's
    practice of giving some admissions preference to certain relatives
    of alumni.      Students claim that Harvard will not discuss the
    effects of those policies, but that they will.
    To   establish   that     a   party's      representation      of   the
    intervenor's interest will be per se inadequate because the party
    - 7 -
    might not make a particular argument, we ask whether pursuit of
    the shared goal obviously calls for the argument to be made.            See
    Daggett, 
    172 F.3d at 112
    ; see also Maine v. Dir., U.S. Fish &
    Wildlife Serv., 
    262 F.3d 13
    , 19–20 (1st Cir. 2001).            It is by no
    means obvious to us that the goal of defeating SFFA's claims calls
    for chronicling and highlighting the manner in which Harvard's
    other     voluntary     admissions     practices   supposedly     decrease
    diversity.    To the contrary, such an undertaking would seem to cut
    against    Harvard's      essential     position   that    race-conscious
    admissions practices are necessary to increase diversity.               See
    Fisher v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 
    133 S. Ct. 2411
    , 2420 (2013)
    (stating that a university's consideration of an applicant's race
    is permissible, provided that it is necessary to achieve the
    educational benefits of diversity).          This may well be why the
    district court reasoned that SFFA was likely to try to show
    precisely what Students say they would seek to show about the
    effect of legacy preferences.2        Students for Fair Admissions, 308
    F.R.D. at 51.        In this respect, Students' intervention in the
    action would seem more likely to hinder rather than to help the
    pursuit of the very goal they share with Harvard.
    In   a    slightly   different   variation    on   this   theme,
    Students argue that they will be more single-mindedly zealous than
    2 SFFA's complaint suggests that because Harvard could increase
    diversity by voluntarily eliminating legacy preferences and
    policies, race-conscious admissions practices are not necessary.
    - 8 -
    Harvard because Harvard's balancing of competing priorities may
    pose a "settlement risk:           if Harvard prioritizes practices, like
    the legacy policy, that encourage donors and continued financial
    support of the institution and it perceives them to be at risk in
    this litigation, then it might modify or abandon its race-conscious
    policies in order to settle."          Exactly how any relief ordered by
    the court on SFFA's complaint might require Harvard to terminate
    practices like the legacy policy, Students do not explain.                Their
    argument    also    assumes    that   intervention     would   somehow    enable
    Students to limit Harvard's discretion in deciding whether to
    settle or fight.          Yet Students point to no basis for such an
    assumption.       To the contrary, Students concede that they lack any
    legal     basis    for    requiring   Harvard   to     maintain    its   current
    practices.        Therefore, if Students' theory that putting legacy
    practices under scrutiny during the litigation might cause Harvard
    to settle were correct, then once again Students would seem to be
    seeking intervention to do something that would work against the
    goal they profess to share.
    Of course, we doubt that Students and their able counsel
    would really pursue such a counter-productive approach if they
    believe    what    they    claim   about   Harvard's    relative    priorities.
    Nonetheless, the fact that these arguments are the best that they
    can offer in trying to say why Harvard will not adequately defend
    - 9 -
    the lawsuit suggests quite strongly that Students' participation
    as a party is not needed to fill in a hole in Harvard's defense.
    We recognize that our holding is on the surface contrary
    to a holding reached sixteen years ago by the Sixth Circuit in
    Grutter v. Bollinger, 
    188 F.3d 394
     (6th Cir. 1999).                             But see
    Hopwood v. Texas, 
    21 F.3d 603
    , 605–06 (5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam).
    Grutter, however, seemed to rely on the premise that "evidence of
    past discrimination by the University itself or of the disparate
    impact of some current admissions criteria . . . may be important
    and relevant factors in determining the legality of a race-
    conscious admissions policy."                 Grutter, 
    188 F.3d at 401
    .             Prior
    and subsequent Supreme Court decisions, however, cast doubt on the
    relevance     of       such       factors    in   sustaining       a     race-conscious
    admissions policy.            See Fisher, 
    133 S. Ct. at 2421
     (stating that
    the "only interest this Court has approved in" the context of
    higher education is "the benefits of a student body diversity that
    'encompasses       a    .     .    .   broa[d]    array    of   qualifications        and
    characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a single
    though important element'") (quoting Regents of Univ. of Cal. v.
    Bakke, 
    438 U.S. 265
    , 315 (1978)).                    In any event, even putting to
    one   side    any      question        concerning      Grutter's       suggestion    that
    evidence     of    past     discrimination        might   justify       the   indefinite
    continuation of race-conscious admissions to a student population
    that rolls over every four years, we still prefer our analysis to
    - 10 -
    that offered by the split Grutter circuit court given that,
    intervention    or    not,   Harvard   could   decide    to   settle   without
    Students even being at the table.
    Nor does our own prior decision in Cotter v. Mass. Ass'n
    of Minority Law Enforcement Officers, 
    219 F.3d 31
     (1st Cir. 2000),
    require reversal in this case.           Cotter was, by its own terms,
    virtually sui generis, eschewing a "simple formula" as "difficult,
    if not impossible, to contrive," 
    id. at 34
    , and concerning itself
    "with matters of degree and a particular fact pattern," 
    id. at 37
    .
    See Patch, 204 F.3d at 204 ("Because small differences in fact
    patterns can significantly affect the outcome, the very nature of
    Rule 24(a)(2) inquiry limits the utility of comparisons between
    and among published opinions.").          The Cotter plaintiffs' claims
    against the defendant employer actually put at risk the existing
    jobs of the proposed intervenors and those whom they represented.
    Id. at 34–35.        Unlike Harvard, the defendant in Cotter neither
    opposed   intervention       nor   professed   to   be   in   a   position   to
    adequately represent intervenors' interests.              Id. at 33.     Most
    importantly, the intervenors in Cotter proposed to argue that the
    defendant was "in violation of law," id. at 36, and that the
    practices challenged in the lawsuit were defensible as a remedy
    for past unlawful discrimination, id. at 35, which is precisely
    the type of legal argument Students acknowledge their advocacy
    will lack because it has no toehold in this case.                 All in all,
    - 11 -
    Cotter left ample room for the district court's ruling in this
    materially different litigation.
    We have also considered Students' argument that their
    inability to keep Harvard from settling does not per se defeat
    their   motion      to     intervene     by   right,    citing   Conservation      Law
    Foundation of New England, Inc. v. Franklin, 
    989 F.2d 54
    , 59 (1st
    Cir. 1993).         In that case, though, we merely said that the fact
    that a party was allowed to intervene did not mean that it would
    later necessarily have standing to oppose entry of a consent
    decree.       
    Id.
       Here, we simply hold that, when a party cites a fear
    of settlement as a reason to intervene, it is not an abuse of
    discretion to find that reason insufficient if the intervention
    will    not    reduce      the   likelihood     of   settlement,    much    less    if
    intervention might increase the likelihood.
    III.    Conclusion
    For the reasons set forth above, we can find no reason
    to   criticize       the    district      court's      thoughtful   and    carefully
    considered disposition of Students' motion, and we are confident
    that Students will find that amicus briefs will provide them with
    a fair opportunity to voice their views concerning the issues posed
    by the litigation.3          Therefore, we affirm.
    3 In granting Students leave to participate as amici curiae, the
    district court permitted them to do the following: 1) "submit a
    brief or memorandum of law not to exceed 30 pages, exclusive of
    exhibits, on any dispositive motion in this case"; 2) "participate
    in oral argument on any dispositive motion"; and 3) "submit
    - 12 -
    personal declarations or affidavits in support of their memorandum
    of law, which may be accorded evidentiary weight if otherwise
    proper." Students for Fair Admissions, 308 F.R.D. at 53.
    - 13 -