Order | Filed: August 04, 2026
| Entered: August 04, 2026
CALIFORNIA v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al
Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision | District Of Columbia
Order on Motion to Intervene
MINUTE ORDER (paperless), upon consideration of the proposed-intervenors American Petroleum Institute and American Fuel &amp Petrochemical Manufacturers' (collectively, "API") 22 Motion to Intervene ("API's Mot. to Intervene"), California's 31 Opposition to Motion to Intervene ("Cal.'s Opp'n"), and API's 29 Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene ("API's Reply"), GRANTING API's motion to intervene.
Parties may intervene as a right "in an action if they meet four requirements: (1) the application to intervene must be timely; (2) the applicant must demonstrate a legally protected interest in the action; (3) the action must threaten to impair that interest; and (4) no party to the action can be an adequate representative of the applicant's interests." United Mexican States v. Lion Mexico Consol. L.P., 172 F.4th 1, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2026) (quoting SEC v. Prudential Sec. Inc., 136 F.3d 153, 156 (D.C. Cir. 1998)). The fourth of these requirements is not burdensome, and "is satisfied if the applicant shows that representation of his interest 'may be' inadequate; and the burden of making that showing should be treated as minimal." Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of Am., 404 U.S. 528, 538 n.10 (1972); see also Dimond v. District of Columbia, 792 F.2d 179, 192 (D.C. Cir. 1986) ("This burden, however, is not onerous.").
API have established each of these elements. First, API argues, and California does not deny, see Cal.'s Opp'n at 5, that its "motion is timely" because its "motion came just a few weeks after the complaint was filed, at an early stage of the case, and no party will be prejudiced," API's Mot., Att. 1, API's Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Intervene ("API's Mem.") at 5, which is enough to satisfy the first element. Second, API has identified a legally protected interest in the litigation, emphasizing that "[t]he outcome of this lawsuit may directly affect API's members, who manufacture fuels, operate refineries, and distribute and sell fuel nationwide" because "EPA has transmitted to Congress waivers that authorize California regulatory programs with substantial nationwide market consequences for liquid fuels." API's Mem. at 6. Indeed, as API argues, see id., the Supreme Court's recent decision in Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA, 606 U.S. 100 (2025), is dispositive on this issue, since the Court reasoned that "the fuel producers persuasively contend that invalidating California's regulations would likely mean more gasoline-powered automobiles, which would in turn likely mean more sales of gasoline and other liquid fuels by the fuel producers," id. at 117. As to the third element, that the action must threaten to impair the legally protected interest, API has demonstrated that its members' economic interests may be affected by this suit because "California alleges that submission of the waivers threatens their continued effectiveness and seeks relief specifically designed to prevent that result." API's Reply at 5. California's theory of the case suggests that "EPA's reclassification and submission of these four waivers is a new attempt to overturn additional waivers and prevent California from enforcing its laws," Cal.'s Opp'n at 4, and, to the extent that California's relief would preserve these waivers, API's economic interests would be impaired. Fourth, API contends that "the Government must represent the broad public interest, including institutional interests, while Proposed Intervenors represent the more narrow, parochial economic and legal interests of their members," API's Mem. at 8. This is sufficient to demonstrate that EPA's representation "'may be' inadequate" to protect API's economic interests. Trbovich, 404 U.S. at 538 n.10. Therefore, API has satisfied all four prerequisites for intervention and its motion to intervene is GRANTED.
Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on August 4, 2026. (lcbah4)
Order | Filed: August 04, 2026
| Entered: August 04, 2026
CALIFORNIA v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al
Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision | District Of Columbia
.Order
MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING plaintiff California's 14 Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction or Stay Under 5 U.S.C. &sect 705. California did not comply with D.D.C. Local Rule 7(m) and include a statement in this "nondispositive motion in a civil action&nbsp.&nbsp.&nbsp.&nbsp. whether the motion is opposed" by opposing counsel, id., but neither defendant nor proposed intervenors have expressed any opposition. Moreover, as the D.C. Circuit has explained, "[a] court may also consider 'matters of which it may take judicial notice' because that information 'is not subject to reasonable dispute,'" Page v. Comey, 137 F.4th 806, 814 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (quoting Stewart v. Nat'l Educ. Dep't, 471 F.3d 169, 173 (D.C. Cir. 2006), and Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)), and such materials include court-docketed filings, government-generated records and newspaper articles for which judicial notice is requested. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on August 4, 2026. (lcbah4)