discretion, abuse of

In 1971 Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation applied to the Village of Arlington Heights, Illinois, for rezoning of a 15-acre parcel from single-family to multiple-family classification. Using federal financial assistance under section 236 of the National Housing Act, MHDC planned to build 190 clustered townhouse units for low- and moderate-income tenants. The Village denied the rezoning request. MHDC, joined by other plaintiffs, brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that the denial was racially discriminatory and violated the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Arlington Heights is a suburb of Chicago located about 26 miles northwest of the downtown Loop. Most land in the Village is zoned for detached single-family homes. The Clerics of St. Viator own an 80-acre parcel just east of the center of Arlington Heights that includes a high school, a novitiate building, and vacant land. Since 1959 all land surrounding the Viatorian property has been zoned R-3 for single-family use with relatively small minimum lot-size requirements. In 1970 MHDC entered into a 99-year lease and accompanying agreement of sale covering a 15-acre site in the southeast corner of the Viatorian property. The agreement set a bargain purchase price of $300,000 with the sale contingent upon securing zoning clearances and section 236 housing assistance. MHDC's plans for the Lincoln Green project called for 20 two-story buildings containing 190 units with a mix of one-, two-, three-, and four-bedroom configurations and a large portion of the site left open. The development did not conform to the Village zoning ordinance and required rezoning to the R-5 multiple-family classification. MHDC filed a petition for rezoning with the Village Plan Commission accompanied by supporting materials that included an affirmative marketing plan designed to assure racial integration. MHDC consulted with Village staff and incorporated every recommended change into the plans. During the spring of 1971 the Plan Commission considered the proposal at three public meetings that drew large crowds. Opponents focused on the zoning aspects. They argued that the area had always been single-family. They also argued that the buffer policy adopted in 1962 called for R-5 zoning primarily to serve as a buffer between single-family development and commercial or manufacturing districts. At the close of the third meeting the Plan Commission recommended denial. On September 28, 1971, the Village Board denied the rezoning by a 6-1 vote. In June 1972 MHDC and three Black individuals filed suit against the Village. A second nonprofit corporation and an individual of Mexican-American descent intervened. After a bench trial the District Court entered judgment for the Village in 1974. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed in 1975. The Supreme Court granted the Village's petition for certiorari in 1975.

In 1965, Congress enacted Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to provide remedial education services to disadvantaged children. The Board of Education of the City of New York first applied for Title I funds in 1966 and initially arranged to transport eligible private school students to public schools for after-school instruction. When that approach proved unsuccessful due to poor attendance and safety concerns, the Board implemented an on-site program in 1978 that sent public school teachers into parochial schools during regular school hours. In 1978, respondents, who are parents of parochial school children and federal taxpayers, sued the Board in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York challenging the on-site program as violating the Establishment Clause. The District Court enjoined the on-site services in 1981, and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the following year. While the appeal was pending, the Board developed an off-premises program that required transporting students to neutral sites at an estimated additional cost of $6 million per year. In 1983, the parties entered into a consent decree requiring the Board to provide Title I services off the premises of sectarian schools and to establish a monitoring system. Following the Supreme Court's 1985 decision in Aguilar v. Felton, which invalidated a similar program, the parties entered a second consent decree that required the Board to pay for the additional costs of the off-premises program. The Board complied with both decrees, spending over $100 million on computer-aided instruction, leased sites, and transportation between the 1986-1987 and 1993-1994 school years. In 1995, the Board and a group of parents of parochial school students moved in the District Court for relief from the consent decrees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), citing subsequent decisions including Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District and Witters v. Washington Department of Services for the Blind. The District Court denied the motion, concluding that Aguilar remained good law and that no significant change in factual conditions had been shown. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1997.

Before us are two cases in which proposed defendant-intervenors were denied intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and (b). The actions were brought against the University of Michigan to contest the use of an applicant's race as a factor in determining admission. The appeals come from separate district courts but present similar issues. We have therefore consolidated the two cases for purposes of this opinion. In Gratz v. Bollinger, the named plaintiffs are two white applicants who were denied admission to the College of Literature, Arts and Science. They allege that the College's admissions policy violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1983, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief forbidding continuation of the alleged discriminatory admissions process, and admission to the College. The proposed intervenors are 17 African-American and Latino/a individuals who have applied or intend to apply to the University, and the Citizens for Affirmative Action's Preservation (CAAP), a nonprofit organization whose stated mission is to preserve opportunities in higher education for African-American and Latino/a students in Michigan. The district court denied their motion for intervention as of right, holding that the plaintiffs did not have a substantial interest in the litigation and that the University could adequately represent the proposed intervenors' interests. The district court also denied the proposed intervenors' alternative motion for permissive intervention. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the named plaintiff is a white woman challenging the admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. She alleges that the race-conscious admissions policy utilized by the law school violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1983, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq. Grutter seeks compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief forbidding continuation of the alleged discriminatory admissions process, and admission to the law school. The proposed intervenors are 41 students and three pro-affirmative action coalitions. The individual proposed intervenors include 21 undergraduate students of different races who currently attend different undergraduate institutions, all of whom plan to apply to the law school for admission. Five black students who currently attend local high schools also plan to apply to the law school for admission. Twelve students of different races currently attend the law school. A paralegal and a Latino graduate student at the University of Texas at Austin intend to apply to the law school for admission. A black graduate student at the University of Michigan is a member of the Defend Affirmative Action Party. The district court denied the motion to intervene as of right on the basis that the intervenors failed to show that their interests would not be adequately represented by the University. The district court also denied the proposed intervenors' alternative motion for permissive intervention. The plaintiff opposed the motion to intervene, but the defendants, officials of the Law School and the University, did not oppose the motion. The appeals were argued on June 8, 1999, and decided on August 10, 1999.

In April 1996 Congress enacted the Line Item Veto Act, which took effect on January 1, 1997, and authorized the President to cancel in whole any dollar amount of discretionary budget authority, any item of new direct spending, or any limited tax benefit. On August 5, 1997, Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which included section 4722(c) deeming certain New York health-care-provider taxes permissible and in compliance with federal Medicaid requirements. On the same day Congress passed the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which included section 968 granting a limited tax benefit allowing owners of certain food refiners and processors to defer recognition of gain when selling stock to eligible farmers' cooperatives. On August 11, 1997, President Clinton transmitted notices canceling section 4722(c) of the Balanced Budget Act and section 968 of the Taxpayer Relief Act. The City of New York, two hospital associations, one hospital, and two unions representing health-care employees filed suit challenging the cancellation of section 4722(c). Snake River Potato Growers, Inc., a farmers' cooperative formed in May 1997 to acquire potato-processing facilities, and one of its members filed a separate action challenging the cancellation of section 968. The District Court for the District of Columbia consolidated the two actions and held that at least one plaintiff in each case had Article III standing. It ruled on the merits that the cancellations did not conform to the constitutionally mandated procedures for the enactment or repeal of laws. Earlier, six Members of Congress who had voted against the Line Item Veto Act had brought a separate challenge; the District Court had held the Act unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court dismissed that action for lack of standing in Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997). After the President exercised the cancellation authority, the present appellees filed suit challenging the two cancellations, and the District Court again held the statute invalid.