28 U.S.C. § 2348
Representation in proceeding; intervention
The Attorney General is responsible for and has control of the interests of the Government in all court proceedings under this chapter. The agency, and any party in interest in the proceeding before the agency whose interests will be affected if an order of the agency is or is not enjoined, set aside, or suspended, may appear as parties thereto of their own motion and as of right, and be represented by counsel in any proceeding to review the order. Communities, associations, corporations, firms, and individuals, whose interests are affected by the order of the agency, may intervene in any proceeding to review the order. The Attorney General may not dispose of or discontinue the proceeding to review over the objection of any party or intervenor, but any intervenor may prosecute, defend, or continue the proceeding unaffected by the action or inaction of the Attorney General.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case: Rio Grande Pipeline Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 178 F.3d 533 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
Rio Grande Pipeline Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 178 F.3d 533 (D.C. Cir. 1999). “Longhorn’s Intervenor Status Longhorn relies principally on 28 U.S.C. § 2348 in support of its motion to intervene.”
Roeder v. Islamic Repub. of Iran, 333 F.3d 228 (D.C. Cir. 2003). “We were dealing there with intervention in the court of appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 2348 . As to intervention in the district court, requiring standing- for an applicant wishing to come in on the side of a plaintiff who has standing runs into the doctrine that Article III is…”
Port of Boston Marine Terminal Assn. v. Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic, 400 U.S. 62 (1970). “28 U. S. C. § 2348 (1964 ed., Supp. V). Transatlantic argues that even if the Administrative Orders Review Act provides the exclusive method for reviewing final orders of the Maritime Commission, the Commission’s order here was not a final order.”
Military Toxics Proj. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 146 F.3d 948 (D.C. Cir. 1998). “Standing to Intervene Before reaching the merits of the MTP’s petition we must decide whether the CMA or any trade association joining its brief has standing under Article III of the Constitution of the United States to intervene in this case in support of the EPA. See City of…”
Susan M. Bechtel v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, Anchor Broad. Ltd. P'ship Galaxy Commc'ns, Inc., Intervenors, 10 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 1993). “Bechtel has appealed from this modified decision, and Galaxy Communications (another disappointed applicant) has intervened in Bechtel’s appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2348 . 1 We agree with Bechtel that continued application of the integration preference is arbitrary and…”
Synovus Fin. Corp. v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., Southtrust Corp., Intervenor, 952 F.2d 426 (D.C. Cir. 1992). “In addition to the absence of anything in the relevant statutory provisions or the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure that would compel us to turn SouthTrust away, there is nothing in the general principles of administrative law that prevents our hearing SouthTrust’s claim…”
Writers Guild of Am., West, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 423 F. Supp. 1064 (C.D. Cal. 1976). “To be sure, there is a procedure by which interested parties may intervene ( 28 U.S.C. § 2348 ), but the court of appeals under section 2342 has no power to hear a case by private plaintiffs against private defendants and no authority under 28 U.”
Am. Train Dispatchers Ass'n v. Interstate Com. Comm'n & United States of Am., Csx Transp., Inc., Intervenor, 26 F.3d 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1994). “28 U.S.C. § 2348 (1988). This provision, which was enacted in 1966, Pub.”
United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 824 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1987). “See 28 U.S.C. § 2348 . But it was not entitled to intervene for the purpose it did, that is, to challenge rather than defend the order.”
Mail Order Ass'n of Am. v. United States Postal Serv., No. 91-1058, 986 F.2d 509 (D.C. Cir. 1993). “” 28 U.S.C. § 2348 . We interpret this language to contemplate that the Department may choose to (1) defend the order, solely or in conjunction with the agency, (2) remain completely passive, or (3) confess error, and attack the order, even though a statutory co-respondent.”
Pub. Serv. Co. of New Hampshire v. Patch, 173 F.R.D. 17 (D.N.H. 1997). “Nor is the Court persuaded by OCA’s contention that such a right is provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2348 , which governs review of federal agency decisions and is thus irrelevant to the present case.”
Sawyer Transp., Inc. v. United States of Am. & Interstate Com. Comm'n, 565 F.2d 474 (7th Cir. 1977). “The ICC was named as a separate respondent pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2348 and Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.