Connection lost
Server error
AMERICAN LUNG ASS'N v. REILLY Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Electric utilities sought to intervene in a lawsuit compelling the EPA to meet a statutory deadline. The court denied intervention, finding the utilities’ interest in the outcome of a future rulemaking was too remote and contingent to satisfy the requirements for intervention as of right.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies the test for intervention as of right under FRCP 24(a)(2), holding that a contingent economic interest in future agency action is insufficient to compel intervention, especially when an existing party (the agency) provides adequate representation.
AMERICAN LUNG ASS'N v. REILLY Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The American Lung Association and other plaintiffs filed a citizen suit under the Clean Air Act (CAA) against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The suit sought to compel the EPA to perform its non-discretionary statutory duty to review and, if necessary, revise the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQSs) for ozone, a duty for which the statutory deadline had passed. A group of electric utilities and industry associations, whose members would be economically impacted by any potential tightening of the ozone standards, moved to intervene as defendants as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). The utilities did not primarily contest the EPA’s duty to act, but rather sought to participate in shaping the court-ordered schedule for the EPA’s rulemaking process. They argued that without intervention, they would lack standing to challenge the reasonableness of the timeline and might have insufficient time to prepare comments. The district court denied the motion, finding that while the application was timely, the utilities’ interest was too remote and contingent, was not impaired by the litigation, and was adequately represented by the EPA. The utilities appealed the denial.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying a motion for intervention as of right under FRCP 24(a)(2) where the proposed intervenors’ claimed interest was contingent on the outcome of a future agency rulemaking and was arguably represented by an existing party?
No. The court affirmed the denial of intervention, holding that the district Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying a motion for intervention as of right under FRCP 24(a)(2) where the proposed intervenors’ claimed interest was contingent on the outcome of a future agency rulemaking and was arguably represented by an existing party?
Conclusion
This decision reinforces the significant hurdles for intervention as of right, establishing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehe
Legal Rule
To intervene as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2), a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit
Legal Analysis
The Second Circuit reviewed the district court's denial of intervention for abuse Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipi
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A court may deny intervention as of right where the movant’s