George

George v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District

Good Law
175 F. App'x 809
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 29, 2006No. 04-15782California311 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

This appeal asks us to decide whether certain Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations are arbitrary and capricious, specifically 49 C.F.R. § 37.9 . Be *810 cause the DOT has a strong interest in the continuing validity of its regulations, the interests of the United States should be represented as a party in this case. See McCowen v. Jamieson, 724 F.2d 1421, 1423-24 (9th Cir.1984) (recognizing that joinder issues may be brought up sua sponte and stating that rendering a decision regarding the validity of agency regulations “without the Secretary’s being a party to the action would be to ‘deprive it of the right to defend the integrity of its administrative decisions in these areas which so intimately affect its policies and procedures.’ We believe that the interests here involved are sufficiently important to justify the Secretary’s joinder if feasible.”) (citations omitted); see also Jacobsen v. Bonine, 123 F.3d 1272, 1274-75 (9th Cir. 1997) (refusing to address the merits of a claim challenging the administration of an agency program because that agency was not a party to the litigation).

The United States appeared as an amicus curiae on appeal and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.