Case: 14-2184

Document: 00116823395

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/14/2015

Entry ID: 5900123

__________________________14-2184_____________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________________________________
ADA MERCEDES CONDE-VIDAL; MARITZA LOPEZ-AVILES; IRIS DELIA
RIVERARIVERA; JOSE A. TORRUELLAS-IGLESIAS; THOMAS J.
ROBINSON; ZULMA OLIVERASVEGA; YOLANDA ARROYO-PIZARRO;
JOHANNE VELEZ-GARCIA; FAVIOLA MELENDEZ-RODRIGUEZ; PUERTO
RICO PARA TOD@S; IVONNE ALVAREZ-VELEZ,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
DR. ANA RIUS-ARMENDARIZ, in her official capacity as Secretary of the
Health Department of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; WANDA LLOVET
DIAZ, in her official capacity as the Director of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Registrar of Vital Records; ALEJANDRO J. GARCIA-PADILLA, in his official
capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; JUAN C.
ZARAGOSA-GOMEZ, in his official capacity as Director of the Treasury in
Puerto Rico,
Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court from the District of Puerto Rico
Civil Case No. 14-1253 (PG)
Honorable District Court Judge Juan Prez-Gimnez
BRIEF FOR EIGHT (8) NAMED SENATORS AND FIVE (5)
NAMED REPRESENTATIVES DULY ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO AS INTERVENOR

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

OF APPEAL

FOR PURPOSES

Case: 14-2184

Document: 00116823395

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/14/2015

Entry ID: 5900123

Come Now Eight (8) duly elected Senators along with Four (4) duly elected
Representatives by Puerto Rico constituents, Honorable ngel Ramn
Chayanne

Martnez-Santiago,

Honorable

Jos

Joto"

Prez-Rosa,

Honorable Luis Daniel Rivera-Filomeno, Honorable Pedro Pedrito

Rodrguez-Gonzlez, Honorable Migdalia Padilla-Alvelo, Honorable ngel
Rodrguez-Otero, Honorable Ramn Ruz-Nieves, Honorable Itzamar PeaRamrez, Honorable Jos A. Toni Rodrguez-Quiles, Honorable Nardem
Jaime-Espinosa, Honorable Antonio L. Tony Soto-Torres, Honorable
Mara Milagros Tata Charbonier-Laureano, Jos E. Quiquito Melndez
Ortz (hereinafter Movants) through the undersigned counsel, and hereby
respectfully move this Court for leave to intervene as a party-appellee, either as a
matter of right or permissibly, in the above-captioned matter for purposes of filing
an appeal. In support of this motion, the Eight (8) Senators and the Five (5)
Representatives state the following:

[SPACE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY]

Case: 14-2184

Document: 00116823395

Page: 3

Date Filed: 04/14/2015

Entry ID: 5900123

The Movants As Prospective Intervenors1

1. Honorable ngel Chayanne Martnez-Santiago and Honorable Jos Joto
Prez-Rosa are duly elected senators by Puerto Rico constituents residing within
the District of Arecibo. Both senators are a PNP members, minority party.
2. Honorable Luis Daniel Rivera-Filomeno and Honorable Pedro Pedrito
Rodrguez-Gonzlez, are both duly elected Senators by Puerto Rico constituents
residing within the District of Carolina. Both senators are PPD members, majority
party.

3. Honorable Angel Rodrguez-Otero is a duly elected senator by Puerto Rico

constituents residing within the District of Guayama. He is PPD member, majority
party.

4. Honorable Ramn Ruiz-Nieves is a duly elected senator by Puerto Rico

constituents residing within the District of Ponce. He is a PPD member, majority
party.

Under Article III 1-3 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

legislative power is vested solely upon the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico.

Case: 14-2184

Document: 00116823395

Page: 4

Date Filed: 04/14/2015

Entry ID: 5900123

5. Honorable Migdalia Padilla-Alvelo is a duly elected senator by Puerto Rico

constituents residing within the District of Bayamn. She is a PNP member,
minority party.
6. Honorable Itzamar Pea-Ramrez is a duly elected Senator At Large by Puerto
Rico constituents. She is a PNP member, minority party.
7. Honorable Jos A. Toni Rodrguez-Quiles, is duly elected representative for
District 16 (Isabela, San Sebastin, and Las Maras). He is a PPD member,
majority party.
8. Honorable Nardem Jaime-Espinosa is a duly elected representative for District
Thirty-five (35) (Humacao). He is PPD member, majority party.
9. Honorable Antonio L. Tony Soto-Torres, is a duly elected representative for
District 6 (Catao, Guaynabo, and Bayamn). He is a PNP member, minority
party.
10. Mara Milagros Tata Charbonier-Laureano, is a duly elected Representative
at Large. She is a PNP member, minority party.
11. Jos E. Quiquito Melndez Ortz is a duly elected Representative at Large.
He is a PNP member, minority party.

12. They all appear in their individual capacities as prospective Intervenors

(hereinafter Movants).

Because the Appellee-Defendants have refused to

4

Case: 14-2184

Document: 00116823395

Page: 5

Date Filed: 04/14/2015

Entry ID: 5900123

defend Puerto Ricos marriage law (Article 68) on appeal, Movants move to
intervene for the purposes of pursuing an appeal, protecting its significant interests,
and ensuring that the critical constitutional questions presented in this case are
properly defended.
Argument
1.

Appellants are comprised of a gay rights advocacy group and five samesex couples seeking the right to marry in Puerto Rico or recognition of their
foreign marriages sued four government officials to invalidate Article 68
under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth
Amendment. On October 21, 2014 the District Court dismissed their claims
under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), based on Massachusetts v. HHS, 682 F.3d 1,
8 (1st Cir. 2012), and Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972). This appeal
ensued.

2. On March 20, 2015, the defendant-appellee, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

(the Executive branch of government), changed its position before the Court by
filing its appellee brief, now in support of the appellants request for remedies
asserting, in summary, that it cannot be established that, what they describe as
Puerto Ricos ban on same-sex marriage, is narrowly tailored to advance a
compelling state interest and that constitutional strict scrutiny should be applied
whether it be under Equal Protection Clause or Due Process Clause. The
5

Case: 14-2184

Document: 00116823395

Page: 6

Date Filed: 04/14/2015

Entry ID: 5900123

position assumed by the Executive Branch is contrary to Puerto Ricos public

policy duly enacted through the legislative process.
3. The prospective intervenor brief is submitted by government officers who
will properly defend the Puerto Ricos marriage law.

4. They have an interest in the case.

5. Appellant-Plainffs challenge Puerto Ricos marriage law (Article 68) on
constitutional equal-protection grounds. The challenged law defines
marriage and limits recognition of marriage within the State to the union of
one man and one woman.
6. The challenged law originated as legislation in the Commonwealth of Puerto
Ricos legislature.
7. On October 21, 2014 the District Court dismissed Appellants claims under
FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), based on Massachusetts v. HHS, 682 F.3d 1, 8 (1st
Cir. 2012), and Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972).
8. The Governor of Puerto Rico, through its Secretary of Justice, although at
first defended Puerto Ricos marriage law before the district court, had a
change of heart and on appeal took the position that Puerto Ricos Article 68
is now unconstitutional.

Case: 14-2184

Document: 00116823395

Page: 7

Date Filed: 04/14/2015

Entry ID: 5900123

9. Movants, as duly elected officials have plenary authority to regulate the

institution of marriage in this State. From the laws perspective, the wellbeing of marriage as a social institution in Puerto Rico has been uniquely
entrusted to the Legislature, which has a significant interest as the States
legislative body, and as the author of the challenged laws, to ensure that the
States marriage laws are adequately defended when challenged in court.
10.If the Prospective Interveners cannot intervene the legislatures ability to
protect its significant interests in the subject of this action will be impeded.
11.The Legislatures significant interests in the subject of this action are
inadequately represented by existing parties. In addition, the Appellant has
consented that another group of senators appear as amici in order to
advocate on their behalf as well.
12. Appellees inaction and refusal to defend Puerto Ricos marriage laws has
the effect of undermining the legislatures interests in defending the
challenged marriage laws. In fact, the Appellee is now advocating on behalf
of the Appellant.
13. Substantial justice requires that Movants be allowed to intervene given the
Appellees refusal to defend Article 68.

Allowing the Prospective

Interveners to intervene furthers substantial justice by ensuring the orderly

Case: 14-2184

Document: 00116823395

Page: 8

Date Filed: 04/14/2015

Entry ID: 5900123

and dignified resolution of a constitutional question of enormous state and

national importance.
14.Granting the Movants motion to intervene will not prejudice the existing
parties.
15.Movants have a cognizable interest in defending the enforceability of
statutes the legislature has passed when the Governor declines to enforce
them and Movants interests are not currently being adequately represented in
this action. Abandonment of the Executive branchs traditional role of
defending duly-enacting statutes, that decision imposes substantial burdens
on the legislature. Movants intervention is of surpassing importance to the
separation of powers.
16.--Movants have standing to intervene in this appeal to defend the
constitutionality of Article 68.

Our highest court has expressed that

Congress is a proper party to defend the constitutionality of [the

challenged statute]. (citing INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 939 (1983). By
comparison, Puerto Ricos legislature would also be a proper party to defend
the constitutionality of the challenged Article 68.
17. In the accompanying brief in support, Movants will establish, among other
things, that (1) the motion to intervene is timely; (2) they have an interest
relating to the defense of Article 68 as policymakers; (3) the disposition of
8

Case: 14-2184

Document: 00116823395

Page: 9

Date Filed: 04/14/2015

Entry ID: 5900123

the action threatens to create a practical impediment to the intervenors

ability to protect its interest; and (4) no existing party adequately represents
the intervenors interests.
Wherefore, the Eight (8) Senators and the Five (5) Representatives respectfully
urge this Court to grant its motion to intervene.
In Caguas, Puerto Rico this 14th day of April, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
s/EVELYN AIME DE JESS
EVELYN AIME DE JESS
USCA 1st Cir. Bar No. 81601
Counsel for Prospective Intervenors
PO Box 88
Caguas, PR 00726-0088
Telephone (787) 593-3055
evelynaimee@gmail.com
evelynaimee@me.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this same date, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit by using the
CM/ECF system. I certify that the following parties or their counsel of record are
Registered as ECF Filers and that they will be served by the CM/ECF system:

Case: 14-2184

Document: 00116823395

Omar Gonzalez-Pagn
Hayley Gorenberg
Karen L. Loewy
Jael Humphrey-Skomer
Gary W. Kubek
Harriet M. Antczak
Jing Kang
Ryan M. Kusmin
Mark C. Fleming
Felicia H. Ellsworth
Rachel I. Gurvich
Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Paul R.Q. Wolfson
Alan E. Schoenfeld
Celina Romany-Siaca
Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants
Maritza Lpez Avils and Iris D.
Rivera Rivera; Jos A. Torruellas
Iglesias and Thomas J. Robinson;
Zulma Oliveras Vega and Yolanda

Page: 10

Date Filed: 04/14/2015

Entry ID: 5900123

Ada M. Conde Vidal

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant
Ivonne lvarez Vlez
Jos L. Nieto
Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant
Ada M.Conde Vidal
Idza Daz-Rivera
Andrs Gonzlez-Berdeca
Margarita Luisa Mercado-Echegaray
Tanaira Padilla-Rodrguez
Counsel for Defendants-Appellees

Arroyo Pizarro; Johanne Vlez

Garca and Faviola Melndez
Rodrguez; and Puerto Rico Para
Tod@s

By s/EVELYN AIME DE JESS

USCA 1st Cir. Bar No. 81601
Counsel for Prospective Intervenors

10

Case: 14-2184

Document: 00116823396

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/14/2015

Entry ID: 5900123

______________________14-2184_______________________
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
_____________________________________________________
ADA MERCEDES CONDE-VIDAL; MARITZA LOPEZ-AVILES; IRIS DELIA
RIVERARIVERA; JOSE A. TORRUELLAS-IGLESIAS; THOMAS J.
ROBINSON; ZULMA OLIVERASVEGA; YOLANDA ARROYO-PIZARRO;
JOHANNE VELEZ-GARCIA; FAVIOLA MELENDEZ-RODRIGUEZ; PUERTO
RICO PARA TOD@S; IVONNE ALVAREZ-VELEZ,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
DR. ANA RIUS-ARMENDARIZ, in her official capacity as Secretary of the
Health Department of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; WANDA LLOVET
DIAZ, in her official capacity as the Director of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Registrar of Vital Records; ALEJANDRO J. GARCIA-PADILLA, in his official
capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; JUAN C.
ZARAGOSA-GOMEZ, in his official capacity as Director of the Treasury in
Puerto Rico,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court from the District of Puerto Rico
Civil Case No. 14-1253 (PG)
Honorable District Court Judge Juan Prez-Gimnez
BRIEF FOR EIGHT (8) NAMED SENATORS AND FIVE (5)
NAMED REPRESENTATIVES DULY ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO AS INTERVENOR

Case: 14-2184

Document: 00116823396

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/14/2015

Entry ID: 5900123

INTERVENORS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE

Proposed Intervenor-Defendants: Honorable ngel Ramn Chayanne
Martnez-Santiago, Honorable Jos Joto" Prez-Rosa, Honorable Luis Daniel
Rivera-Filomeno, Honorable Pedro Pedrito Rodrguez-Gonzlez, Honorable
Migdalia Padilla-Alvelo, Honorable ngel Rodrguez-Otero, Honorable Ramn
Ruz-Nieves, Honorable Itzamar Pea-Ramrez, Honorable Jos A. Toni
Rodrguez-Quiles, Honorable Nardem Jaime-Espinosa, Honorable Antonio L.
Tony Soto-Torres, and Honorable Mara Milagros Tata Charbonier-Laureano,
Jos E. Quiquito Melndez Ortz, by and through counsel, respectfully submit
this Proposed Intervener Brief, in Support of Motion to Intervene.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Under the Commonwealth of Puerto Ricos Civil Code, Marriage is a civil
institution whereby a man and a woman mutually agree to become husband and
wife, and foreign same sex marriages are invalid. P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 31, 221
(Article 68).
Appellant-Plaintiffs are a gay rights advocacy group and five same-sex
couples seeking the right to marry in Puerto Rico or recognition of their foreign
marriages (Plaintiffs) sued four (4) government officials (hereinafter, Puerto
Rico) to invalidate Article 68 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses
of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court dismissed their claims under

Case: 14-2184

Document: 00116823396

Page: 3

Date Filed: 04/14/2015

Entry ID: 5900123

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), based on Massachusetts v. HHS, 682 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir.
2012), and Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972).
ARGUMENT
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, through the passage of Article 68 of its
Civil Code, have maintained marriage as a legal union between one man and one
woman. It specifically states the following: [m]arriage is a civil institution
whereby a man and a woman mutually agree to become husband and wife. Any
marriage between persons of the same sex or transsexuals contracted in other
jurisdictions shall not be valid. (Article 68 of the Civil Code, P.R. Laws Ann. tit.
31, 221).
Appellants-Plaintiffs are comprised of a gay rights advocacy group and five
same-sex couples seeking the right to marry in Puerto Rico or recognition of their
foreign marriages sued four government officials to invalidate Article 68 under the
Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. After
Appellee-Defendants defended Article 68, on October 21, 2014 the District Court
dismissed Appellants claims for failing to present a substantial federal question
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), based on Massachusetts v. HHS, 682 F.3d 1, 8 (1st
Cir. 2012), and Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972).
On March 20, 2015, the defendant-appellee, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

Case: 14-2184

Document: 00116823396

Page: 4

Date Filed: 04/14/2015

Entry ID: 5900123

(the Executive branch of government), changed its position before this Court by
supporting appellants request for remedies asserting, in summary, that it cannot be
established that, what they describe as Puerto Ricos ban on same-sex marriage,
is narrowly tailored to advance a compelling state interest and that constitutional
strict scrutiny should be applied whether it be under Equal Protection Clause or
Due Process Clause. The position assumed by the Executive Branch is contrary to
Puerto Ricos public policy which was duly enacted through the legislative
process.
I. MOVANTS ARE ENTITLED TO INTERVENE
There is no Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure that specifically governs
motions to intervene. However, this Circuit has held that motions to intervene in
appellate proceedings should be guide[d] . . . by analogy to Rule 24 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Algonquin Gas Transmission Co. v. Fed. Power
Commn, 201 F.2d 334, 342 App. (1st Cir. 1953). Other circuit courts have adopted
the same position. See, e.g., Carter v. Welles-Bowen Realty, Inc., 628 F.3d 790,
790 (6th Cir. 2010) (On appeal, we may grant either intervention of right or
permissive intervention.); Northeast Ohio Coal. for the Homeless v. Blackwell,
467 F.3d 999, 1006-08 (6th Cir. 2006) (allowing Ohio Attorney General to
intervene, pursuant to Rule 24, to defend constitutionality of state statute).
Movants meet the Rule 24 requirements for intervention in this case.

Case: 14-2184

Document: 00116823396

Page: 5

Date Filed: 04/14/2015

Entry ID: 5900123

INTERVENTION IS APROPRIATE UNDER RULE 24(a)(2)

Federal Rule 24(a)(2) provides that:
On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who:
(2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the
subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action
may as a practical matter impair or impede the movants ability to
protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that
interest.
Under the law of this Circuit, four criteria must be satisfied before
intervention as of right under this rule will be granted:
(1) the motion to intervene must be timely;
(2) the putative intervenor must have an interest relating to the
property or transaction that forms the basis of the ongoing suit;
(3) the disposition of the action threatens to create a practical
impediment to the intervenors ability to protect its interest; and
(4) no existing party adequately represents the intervenors interests. B.
Fernandez & Hnos., Inc. v. Kellogg USA, Inc., 440 F.3d 541, 54445 (1st Cir.
2006) (citing Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H. v. Patch, 136 F.3d 197, 204 (1st Cir. 1998)).
The Movants easily satisfy each of these requirements.

Case: 14-2184

Document: 00116823396

Page: 6

Date Filed: 04/14/2015

Entry ID: 5900123

1. Timeliness
First, Movants motion is timely.

Appellee-Defendants, announced on

March 20, 2015 the decision to no longer defend Puerto Ricos marriage law,
(Article 68) from equal protection challenges. On that same date they filed their
appellees brief. Today, this Court ordered the parties to confer an propose a
schedule for further proceedings in view of the cases pending before the Supreme
Court of the United States such as Obergfell v. Hodges, 14-556, among others.
Second, Movants have a strong interest in defending the constitutionality of
its legislative handiwork codified in Article 68 of the Civil Code, P.R. Laws Ann.
tit. 31, 221, which states that [m]arriage is a civil institution whereby a man and
a woman mutually agree to become husband and wife. Any marriage between
persons of the same sex or transsexuals contracted in other jurisdictions shall not
be valid.
Third, appellees refusal to defend Article 68 threatens Movants ability to
protect its interest in seeing that Article 68s constitutionality is upheld because
both parties to the appeal contend that Article 68 is unconstitutional under the
equal protection component of the Fourteenth Amendment and Appellees refuse to
defend against that challenge. Therefore, unless Movants intervene, they will have
no ability to protect its constitutional interests.

Case: 14-2184

Document: 00116823396

Page: 7

Date Filed: 04/14/2015

Entry ID: 5900123

Lastly, for exactly the same reason, none of the existing parties represent
Movants interest in defending the constitutionality of Puerto Ricos marriage law
against equal protection challenges. See Chadha, 462 U.S. at 940. While there is
normally a rebuttable presumption that the government will adequately defend an
action, that presumption is overcome where, as here, there is a divergence of
interest between the governmental entity charged with defending an action (here,
Secretary of Justice and the Governor) and the intervenor (here, Legislators). See
Cotter v. Mass. Assn of Minority Law Enforcement Officers, 219 F.3d 31, 3536
(1st Cir. 2000).
In short, given appellees intent to not defend Article 68, it would be
appropriate that Movants be allowed to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2).
2. Movants Have Significantly Protectable Interests in the Subject Matter
Movants have significant protectable interests in the subject matter of this
appeal. See U.S. ex rel. Frank M. Sheesley Co. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins.
Co., 239 R.R.D. 404, 409 (W.D. Pa. 2006) (The interest at stake must be
significantly protectable, which binding precedent interprets to mean a legal
interest as distinguished from interests of a general and indefinite character.
Harris v. Pernsley, 820 F.2d 592, 601 (3d Cir.1987)).
Movants, as duly elected legislators, have a significantly protectable interest
in the Commonwealths laws and policy making through a democratic process.

Case: 14-2184

Document: 00116823396

Page: 8

Date Filed: 04/14/2015

Entry ID: 5900123

This includes matters of domestic relations.

The U.S. Supreme Court has expressed that domestic relations of husband
and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States. See Windsor,
133 S.Ct. at 269192, (citing Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 383384 (1930)).
Puerto Ricos Article 68 is the embodiment of state regulation of domestic
relations. The voters exercise of their reserved power must be preserved and
protected. Regulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded
as a virtually exclusive province of the States. See Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2691.
3. Absent Movants Intervention as a Party, the Courts Ruling Will
Impair Their Significantly Protectable Interests
As a practical matter, the outcome of this appeal has the potential to
adversely affect Movants significantly protectable interests. The U.S. Supreme
Court previously ruled that domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and
child were matters reserved to the States. See Windsor, supra.
In harmony with Windsors ruling, the district court expressed that the
question of whether to exclude LGBT people from marriage is for the People,
acting through their elected representatives. (Conde-Vidal vs. Rius Armendariz,
14-1253-PG, D.P.R. page 21). The district court, citing Schuette, infra, went on to
emphasize the importance of the role of the people, acting through their elected
representatives to regulate marriage:

Case: 14-2184

Document: 00116823396

Page: 9

Date Filed: 04/14/2015

Entry ID: 5900123

For now, one basic principle remains: the people, acting through their
elected representatives, may legitimately regulate marriage by law.
This principle is impeded, not advanced, by court decrees based on the
proposition that the public cannot have the requisite repose to discuss certain
issues. It is demeaning to the democratic process to presume that the voters
are not capable of deciding an issue of this sensitivity on decent and rational
grounds . . . Freedom embraces the right, indeed the duty, to engage in a
rational, civic discourse in order to determine how best to form a consensus
to shape the destiny of the Nation and its people. (emphasis supplied).
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. __, 134 S.Ct.
1623, 1637 (2014)(Op. of Kennedy, J.).
By granting intervention to Movants, this Court will guarantee as well as
safeguard their legal interests to appropriately defend the peoples right in
regulating their domestic policies through their elected representatives.
4. The existing parties do not adequately represent Movants interests.
The existing parties are not defending the suit on appeal and have simply
acquiesced to the Appellants claims when they changed their position and decided
not to defend Article 68. Therefore, existing parties representation is inadequate
since they are not diligently litigating the case.
[A] decision not to appeal by an original party to the action can constitute
inadequate representation of another partys interest. Americans United for
Separation of Church and State v. City of Grand Rapids, 922 F.2d 303, 305 (6th
Cir 1990) (agreeing with the District of Columbia Circuit); see also Pellegrino v.
Nesbit, 203 F.2d 463, 468 (9th Cir. 1953); Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook
County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 101 F.3d 503, 508-09 (7th Cir. 1996)
(collecting cases from the Sixth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits).

Case: 14-2184

Document: 00116823396

Page: 10

Date Filed: 04/14/2015

Entry ID: 5900123

A proposed intervenor should be treated [by this Court] as the best judge of
whether the existing parties adequately represent ... her interests, and ... any doubt
regarding adequacy of representation should be resolved in [her] favor. 6 Edward
J. Brunet, Moores Federal Practice 24.03[4][a] (3d ed. 1997).
proving that Movants interests are not adequately represented.
Thus, as Appellee-Defendants assumed the position of not defending Article
68 on appeal Movants interests are not adequately represented.
STANDING
On the matter of standing, in this Circuit an applicant who satisfies the
interest requirement of the intervention rule is almost always going to have a
sufficient stake in the controversy to satisfy Article III as well. Cotter, 219 F.3d at
34 (citing Transam. Ins. Co. v. South, 125 F.3d 392, 396 n.4 (7th Cir. 1997)); see
also Daggett v. Commn on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices, 172 F.3d
104, 110 (1st Cir. 1999) (Although the two are not identical, the interest
required under Rule 24(a) has some connection to the interest that may give the
party a sufficient stake in the outcome to support standing under Article III.). As
discussed above, Movants clearly satisfy the interest requirement of Rule 24(a)(2).
Moreover, this Court has repeatedly held that intervenors met the rather modest
requirements of Article III. Daggett 172 F.3d at 109, 114 (holding that defendantintervenors possessed Article III standing and explaining that it was therefore

Case: 14-2184

Document: 00116823396

Page: 11

Date Filed: 04/14/2015

Entry ID: 5900123

unnecessary to decide whether an intervenor as of right must possess standing

under Art. III); see also Mangual v. Rotger-Sabat, 317 F.3d. 45, 62 (1st Cir. 2003)
(declining to decide the complicated question of whether standing is required to
intervene if the original parties are still pursuing the case because it is clear that
[the intervenor] has sufficient standing under Article III).
II. MOVANTS ARE ENTITLED TO PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION
Movants are also entitled to intervention are also entitled to permissive
intervention. On timely motion, the court may permit a . . . governmental officer
or agency to intervene if a partys claim or defense is based on a statute. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 24(b)(2).
In this case, it is undeniable that Movants are duly elected legislators with
plenary authority to regulate the institution of marriage in this State. From the
laws perspective, the well-being of marriage as a social institution in Puerto Rico
has been uniquely entrusted to the Legislature, which has a significant interest as
the States legislative body, and as the author of the challenged laws, to ensure that
the States marriage laws are adequately defended when challenged in court.
Therefore, this Court should permit Movants to intervene in this appeal in
order to defend Article 68.
Additionally, a court may grant permissive intervention upon a timely
motion, provided that a proposed intervenor has a claim or defense that shares

Case: 14-2184

Document: 00116823396

Page: 12

Date Filed: 04/14/2015

Entry ID: 5900123

with the main action a common question of law or fact, and that the intervention
will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties rights.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). First, Movants established above that their motion is timely,
and the same argument applies with equal force here. Second, Movants defense
shares a common question of law with Plaintiffs claimsnamely, whether Puerto
Ricos Marriage Law violates the United States Constitution. Third, the litigation
will not be delayed, nor will the existing parties be unduly prejudiced by Movants
intervention in this case because they do not seek to relitigate matters before the
district court but only to defend on appeal. Thus permissive intervention is proper
here. Further, a comprehensive defense of Puerto Ricos Marriage Law before the
appellate courts is desirable to ensure that the important constitutional question
raised in this case is properly refined by the crucible of appellate review. See
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2674 (2013) (Kennedy, J., dissenting).
The Court should therefore grant Movants request for permissive
intervention.
[SPACE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY]

Case: 14-2184

Document: 00116823396

Page: 13

Date Filed: 04/14/2015

Entry ID: 5900123

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant Movants request to
intervene as an Appellee-Defendant in this case.
Respectfully submitted in Caguas, Puerto Rico this14th day of April, 2015
s/EVELYN AIME DE JESS
EVELYN AIME DE JESS
USCA 1st Cir. Bar No. 81601
Counsel for Prospective Intervenors
PO Box 88
Caguas, PR 00726-0088
Telephone (787) 593-3055
evelynaimee@gmail.com
evelynaimee@me.c
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this same date, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit by using the
CM/ECF system. I certify that the following parties or their counsel of record are
Registered as ECF Filers and that they will be served by the CM/ECF system:

Case: 14-2184

Document: 00116823396

Page: 14

Date Filed: 04/14/2015

Entry ID: 5900123

Omar Gonzalez-Pagn

Ada M. Conde Vidal

Hayley Gorenberg

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant

Karen L. Loewy

Ivonne lvarez Vlez

Jael Humphrey-Skomer

Jos L. Nieto

Gary W. Kubek

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant

Harriet M. Antczak

Ada M.Conde Vidal

Jing Kang

Idza Daz-Rivera

Ryan M. Kusmin

Andrs Gonzlez-Berdeca

Mark C. Fleming

Margarita Luisa Mercado-Echegaray

Felicia H. Ellsworth

Tanaira Padilla-Rodrguez

Rachel I. Gurvich

Counsel for Defendants-Appellees

Wilmer Cutler Pickering

Paul R.Q. Wolfson
Alan E. Schoenfeld
Celina Romany-Siaca
Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants
Maritza Lpez Avils and Iris D.
Rivera Rivera; Jos A. Torruellas
Iglesias and Thomas J. Robinson;
Zulma Oliveras Vega and Yolanda

Arroyo Pizarro; Johanne Vlez

Garca and Faviola Melndez
Rodrguez; and Puerto Rico Para
Tod@s

By s/EVELYN AIME DE JESS

USCA 1st Cir. Bar No. 81601

Case: 14-2184

Document: 00116823396

Page: 15

Date Filed: 04/14/2015

Entry ID: 5900123

Counsel for Prospective Intervenors