This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to United States (amicus curiae), according to United States (amicus curiae), according to United States (amicus curiae), the case concerns whether an intervenor under Rule 24(a)(2) must demonstrate Article III standing.
Background and question before the Court
Petitioner argues that the intervenor’s claim that Rule 24(a)(2) changes the standing analysis is incorrect.
According to Ms. Harrington, respondent contends that standing is required for certain actions, such as seeking damages or filing a new claim.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
According to Petitioner, if Laroe had filed the lawsuit against the Town of Chester, it would have been dismissed for lack of standing.
According to Petitioner, laroe’s claim that Rule 24(a)(2) changes the standing analysis is wrong.
Respondent Position
According to Ms. Harrington, standing is required for certain actions, such as seeking damages or filing a new claim.
According to Ms. Harrington, congress has statutes indicating that intervenors may not need standing without a subsequent assessment.
According to Mr. Dvoretsky, an intervenor of right is not unlimited; there are limits on what that intervenor can do.
According to Mr. Katyal, a mandatory intervenor under Rule 24(a)(2) is a full party and can issue subpoenas or document requests without court oversight.
According to Mr. Katyal, intervenors have much more power under Rule 24(b) than under Rule 24(a)(2).
What happened at oral argument
Justice Ginsburg asked why there is a difference between intervening on the defendant’s side and the plaintiff’s side and why that disuniformity exists.
Justice Sotomayor asked, “Why did they bother?”
Justice Breyer asked how a defendant has standing.
Justice Breyer further asked whether a defendant can lack standing and requested recommendations on the topic.
Justice Alito asked how a defendant could lack standing when sued.
Justice Gorsuch asked why the plaintiff’s claim for money damages is not the issue for the intervenor’s standing.
According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor questioned whether an intervenor can obtain a judgment in its own name without standing.
Justice Gorsuch asked whether an intervenor seeking meals in its own name must show standing at that stage.
- [1] 778c4627d9c3694ebe74-r1-5f5a0eb0504cc6c0.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 778c4627d9c3694ebe74-r1-5f5a0eb0504cc6c0.pdf, p. 21
- [3] 778c4627d9c3694ebe74-r1-5f5a0eb0504cc6c0.pdf, p. 38
- [4] 778c4627d9c3694ebe74-r1-5f5a0eb0504cc6c0.pdf, p. 39
- [5] 778c4627d9c3694ebe74-r1-5f5a0eb0504cc6c0.pdf, p. 40
- [6] 778c4627d9c3694ebe74-r1-5f5a0eb0504cc6c0.pdf, p. 41
- [7] 778c4627d9c3694ebe74-r1-5f5a0eb0504cc6c0.pdf, p. 43
- [8] 778c4627d9c3694ebe74-r1-5f5a0eb0504cc6c0.pdf, p. 55
- [9] 778c4627d9c3694ebe74-r1-5f5a0eb0504cc6c0.pdf, p. 57
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 778c4627d9c3694ebe74-r1-5f5a0eb0504cc6c0.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 25, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.