League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President

Opinion

UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, et al., Plaintiffs, V. Civil Action No. 25-0946 (CKK.)

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, et al., Defendants, and REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, Defendant-Intervenor.

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, et al., Plaintiffs, V. Civil Action No. 25-0952 (CKK.)

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Defendants, and REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, Defendant-Intervenor.

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS EDUCATION FUND, et al., Plaintiffs, V. Civil Action No. 25-0955 (CKK.)

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Defendants, and REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, Defendant-Intervenor.

MEMORANDUM OPINION (March 3, 2026)

2

Now pending before the Court is a [237] Motion to Intervene filed by prose Movant Jose

A. Perez. For the reasons explained in the parties' responses to Mr. Perez's Motion, the Court

concludes that Mr. Perez's request to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 is

untimely and Mr. Perez does not have a statutory right to intervene. See Dkt Nos. 238,240,241.

The Court shall therefore DENY the Motion.

The Court entered a final judgment on the claims on which Mr. Perez seeks to intervene

on October 31, 2025, and both the Federal Defendants and the Republican National Committee,

as Defendant-Intervenor, have filed notices of appeal. See Dkt. Nos. 217,227,229. Mr. Perez

had ample opportunity to move to intervene prior to final judgment, and allowing intervention

now would prejudice the parties by requiring costly relitigation of complex issues that the Court

has already decided. Accordingly, his motion is untimely.

Mr. Perez also does not have a statutory right to intervene in this matter. Neither the

Administrative Procedure Act nor any of the federal election statutes that Mr. Perez identifies in

his submissions establishes a right to third-party intervention in this action.

Finally, Mr. Perez's asserted interests have been adequately represented in this case by

the Federal Defendants and the Defendant-Intervenor, both of whom have mounted fulsome

defenses of the relevant provisions of Executive Order No. 14,248.

Accordingly, neither intervention as a matter of right under Rule 24(a) nor permissive

intervention under Rule 24(b) is appropriate here, and the Court shall DENY Mr. Perez's

Motion. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Dated: March 3, 2026 ,//· /# ' /l L-0-Q.~ j/) '\ ~ b.v- v; 0~ COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELL Y United States District Judge