integration mandate is consistently met. 527 U.S. at 597-98 the Olmstead, (“Because Department is the agency directed by Congress to issue regulations implementing Title II, its views warrant omitted); 663 F.3d 1100, 1117-18 see also M.R. v. Dreyfus, respect.”) (citation (9th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, courts have allowed the United States to intervene in actions to enforce and the United States has also brought or participated in numerous other such Olmstead, actions across the country. In enacting the ADA, Congress strong, consistent, enforceable standards sought “clear, addressing discrimination against individuals with 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(2), and disabilities,” explicitly stated that one of the purposes of the ADA was ensure that the Federal Government “to plays a central role in enforcing the standards established [in the Act] on behalf of individuals with disabilities . . . § 12101(b)(3). The central issues of this case are critical to the Id. .” Department of to advance national goals of community integration and enforce Justice’s efforts the civil rights of persons with disabilities as required by the ADA. Thus, the United States meets this requirement for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a). Disposition of this Case May Impede the United Interests States’ The United ability to protect its substantial legal interest would, as a practical States’ matter, be impaired absent intervention. Federal decisions interpreting and applying the provisions of the Act are an important enforcement tool. The outcome of this case, including the potential for appeals by existing parties, implicates concerns that warrant the United stare decisis intervention. 505 F.3d 963, 965 (9th Cir. 2007) (intervention was See Day v. Apolonia, States’ necessary to protect interest where case a precedential impact state intervenor’s might “have regarding the availability of an enforceable right of 288 F.3d at action”); City of Los Angeles, 400 (amicus status may be insufficient to protect rights of applicant for intervention curiae
integration mandate is consistently met. Olmstead, 527 U.S. at 597-98 (“Because the Department is the agency directed by Congress to issue regulations implementing Title II, its views warrant respect.”) (citation omitted); see also M.R. v. Dreyfus, 663 F.3d 1100, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, courts have allowed the United States to intervene in actions to enforce Olmstead, and the United States has also brought or participated in numerous other such actions across the country. In enacting the ADA, Congress sought “clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities,” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(2), and explicitly stated that one of the purposes of the ADA was “to ensure that the Federal Government plays a central role in enforcing the standards established [in the Act] on behalf of individuals with disabilities . . . .” Id. § 12101(b)(3). The central issues of this case are critical to the Department of Justice’s efforts to advance national goals of community integration and enforce the civil rights of persons with disabilities as required by the ADA. Thus, the United States meets this requirement for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a). Disposition of this Case May Impede the United States’ Interests The United States’ ability to protect its substantial legal interest would, as a practical matter, be impaired absent intervention. Federal decisions interpreting and applying the provisions of the Act are an important enforcement tool. The outcome of this case, including the potential for appeals by existing parties, implicates stare decisis concerns that warrant the United States’ intervention. See Day v. Apolonia, 505 F.3d 963, 965 (9th Cir. 2007) (intervention was necessary to protect state intervenor’s interest where case might “have a precedential impact regarding the availability of an enforceable right of action”); City of Los Angeles, 288 F.3d at 400 (amicus curiae status may be insufficient to protect rights of applicant for intervention