This Note argues that federal courts should employ an approach that is more related to maintaining the benefits of Rule 24 without running afoul of Article III—a task the yes-or-no approach is ill equipped to handle. Ultimately, an approach that is based on employing a standing analysis only where the Case or Controversy Clause is implicated anew allows the greatest access to the intervention device without running the risk of entertaining nonjusticiable disputes.
Gregory R. Manring,
It’s Time for an Intervention!: Resolving the Conflict Between Rule 24(a)(2) and Article III Standing,
85 Fordham L. Rev. 2525
Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol85/iss5/46