Motorcycle Industry Council and Specialty Vehicle Institute of America

Lead Briefing and Argument that Resulted in Court’s Reversal of Precedent
IRVINE, Calif. Jan. 17, 2011 – In a move sure to have far-reaching effects on the way federal lands are used in the future, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a long-standing rule that prevented non-federal interests, such as rider groups, from intervening in environmental disputes in the Western States. In support of the recreation group parties in the case, the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) and the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America (SVIA) led the briefing and argument on the issue that resulted in the Court’s reversal of precedent.

In the underlying case, Idaho rider groups sought to intervene in a lawsuit brought by the Wilderness Society and others against the U.S. Forest Service over its travel management plan in the Sawtooth National Forest. The District Court, however, denied intervention under the “federal defendant” rule. The rider groups then asked MIC and SVIA to help fund their appeal through the associations’ OHV Organization Support Program. After review of the merits of the case and the broader implications of a successful appeal, the MIC and SVIA Boards not only agreed to help fund the rider groups’ appeal, but also directed staff to seek to have MIC and SVIA joined to the appeal as amici curiae (friends of the court) to lead the effort to overturn the “federal defendant” rule.

The so-called “federal defendant” rule categorically prohibited anyone other than the federal government from intervening in claims under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the main legal mechanism for disputing government actions that affect the environment. NEPA is the law at issue in many recreation-related lawsuits as well as other land access disputes involving such diverse parties as Indian tribes, state and local governments, mining and timber interests, and environmental groups. The rule, in effect, made it impossible for interested parties to engage in litigation to defend the underlying agency action or to represent their interests in the ultimate outcome of the case.

In striking down the “federal defendant” rule, Circuit Judge Barry G. Silverman wrote for the eleven judge en banc appeals court that, “Because the rule is at odds with the text of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) and the standards we apply in all other intervention of right cases, we abandon it here.”

Tim Buche, president and chief executive officer of the MIC, largely credits the generous support of its membership, which made the decision for the associations, on...