Access to Justice

Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc.

In Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., the Supreme Court considered whether a party seeking to intervene in a case under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must demonstrate that it possesses Article III standing.

Case Summary

Over a decade ago, Steven Sherman attempted to obtain approval from the Town of Chester to develop a nearly 400-acre piece of land he had purchased for $2.7 million. His efforts proved futile, however, because the Town kept changing its zoning regulations, repeatedly forcing Sherman to change his proposal. Sherman eventually sold his property to Laroe Estates, and sued the Town, alleging that it unlawfully prevented him from developing his land and thereby took his property without paying just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Laroe Estates moved to intervene in the lawsuit, asserting the same claims and seeking the same relief as Sherman. A federal district court denied Laroe’s motion to intervene, claiming that Laroe did not have Article III standing and therefore could not assert its claim in the case against the Town. Laroe appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the lower court’s denial of the motion, ruling that Article III standing was not required for intervention. The Town appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

On April 3, 2017, CAC, along with the Institute for Justice, filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Laroe, urging the Court to affirm the lower court’s decision and decline to constitutionalize the law governing intervention. As we explained in our brief, Article III’s limitations on cases and controversies require a plaintiff to establish standing to sue, but do not apply when a litigant seeks to intervene in an already existing case. Since a party seeking to intervene in litigation is, by definition, seeking to enter an existing “case or controversy,” Article III’s requirements have already been satisfied. The Town’s argument cannot be squared with Supreme Court precedent, as the Court has long held that one plaintiff with standing is sufficient to create a case or controversy and has previously permitted third parties to intervene without considering whether they possessed Article III standing.

The Court heard oral argument on April 17, 2017. On June 5, 2017, the Court unanimously held that a party seeking to intervene in an existing case must have Article III standing if the party seeks relief that is not already requested by a plaintiff. The Court remanded the case back to the Second Circuit for further proceedings to determine whether Laroe was, in fact, seeking different relief than the plaintiff. Significantly, the Court did not decide the broader question whether a party seeking to intervene must always possess Article III standing.

Case Timeline

More from Access to Justice

Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Nieves v. Bartlett

In Nieves v. Bartlett, the Supreme Court is considering whether people who allege they were arrested in retaliation for their speech, in violation of the First Amendment, are prevented from seeking damages for that violation...
Access to Justice
July 26, 2018

OOIDA files amicus brief to High Court in support of truck driver’s case against Prime

Land Line Magazine
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association has filed an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court...
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira

In New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira, the Supreme Court is considering whether companies can use the Federal Arbitration Act to block truck drivers and other transportation workers who work for them from seeking redress in...
Access to Justice
May 21, 2018

RELEASE: Chamber Scores Big Win with Gorsuch Opinion Against Workers

WASHINGTON—On news today that the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Epic Systems Corporation,...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra
Access to Justice
March 12, 2018

Striking Out: Wrongly Keeping Indigent Prisoners Out of Court

The Supreme Court will decide whether to hear a case about the “three strikes” provision...
By: Ashwin Phatak
Access to Justice
December 1, 2017

ACS Supreme Court Review | Bank of America v. Miami: An Important Progressive Victory Due to a Surprising Fifth Vote

Though Chief Justice Roberts has consistently sided with big business over those who are trying...
By: Brianne J. Gorod