(a) Intervention of right. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who:
(1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a statute; or
(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 movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.
(b) Permissive intervention.
(1) In General. On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who:
(A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a statute; or
(B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.
(2) By a Governmental Entity. On timely motion, the court may permit a governmental entity to intervene if a party’s claim or defense is based on:
(A) a statute or executive order administered by the governmental entity; or
(B) any regulation, order, requirement, or agreement issued or made under the statute or executive order.
(3) Delay or Prejudice. In exercising its discretion, the court must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.
(c) Notice and motion required. A motion to intervene must be served on the parties as provided in Rule 5. The motion must state the grounds for intervention and set out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought.
(d) Constitutionality of Utah statutes, ordinances, rules, and other administrative or legislative enactments.
(1) Challenges to a statute. If a party challenges the constitutionality of a statute in an action in which the Attorney General has not appeared, the party raising the question of constitutionality shall notify the Attorney General of such fact by serving the notice on the Attorney General by email or, if circumstances prevent service by email, by mail at the address below. The party shall then file proof of service with the court. Email: [email protected] Mail: Office of the Utah Attorney General Attn: Utah Solicitor General 350 North State Street, Suite 230 P.O. Box 142320 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-2320
(2) Challenges to an ordinance or other governmental enactment. If a party challenges the constitutionality of a governmental entity’s ordinance, rule, or other administrative or legislative enactment in an action in which the governmental entity has not appeared, the party raising the question of constitutionality shall notify the governmental entity of such fact by serving the person identified in Rule 4(d)(1) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. The party shall then file proof of service with the court.
(3) Notification procedures.
(A) Form and content. The notice shall (i) be in writing, (ii) be titled “Notice of Constitutional Challenge Under URCP 24(d),” (iii) concisely describe the nature of the challenge, and (iv) include, as an attachment, the pleading, motion, or other paper challenging constitutionality as set forth above.
(B) Timing. The party shall serve the notice on the Attorney General or other governmental entity on or before the date the party files the paper challenging constitutionality as set forth above.
(4) Attorney General’s or other governmental entity’s response to notice.
(A) Within 14 days after the deadline for the parties to file all papers in response to the constitutional challenge, the Attorney General or other governmental entity (“responding entity”) shall file a notice of intent to respond unless the responding entity determines that a response is unnecessary. The responding entity may seek up to an additional 7 days’ extension of time to file a notice of intent to respond.
(B) If the responding entity files a notice of intent to respond within the time permitted by this rule, the court will allow the responding entity to file a response to the constitutional challenge and participate at oral argument when it is heard.
(C) Unless the parties stipulate to or the court grants additional time, the responding entity’s response to the constitutional challenge shall be filed within 14 days after filing the notice of intent to respond.
(D) The responding entity’s right to respond to a constitutional challenge under Rule 25A of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure is unaffected by the responding entity’s decision not to respond under this rule.
(5) Failure to provide notice. Failure of a party to provide notice as required by this rule is not a waiver of any constitutional challenge otherwise timely asserted. If a party does not serve a notice as required by this rule, the court may postpone the hearing until the party serves the notice.
(e) Indian Child Welfare Act Proceedings. In proceedings subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, 25 U.S.C. sections 1901–63:
(1) The Indian child’s tribe is not required to formally intervene in the proceeding unless the tribe seeks affirmative relief from the court.
(2) If an Indian child’s tribe does not formally intervene in the proceeding, official tribal representatives from the Indian child’s tribe have the right to participate in any court proceeding. Participating in a court proceeding includes:
(A) being present at the hearing;
(B) addressing the court;
(C) requesting and receiving notice of hearings;
(D) presenting information to the court and parties that is relevant to the proceeding;
(E) submitting written reports and recommendations to the court and parties; and
(F) performing other duties and responsibilities as requested or approved by the court.
(3) The designated representative must provide the representative’s contact information in writing to the court and to the parties.
(4) As provided in Rule 14-802 of the Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice, before a nonlawyer may represent a tribe in the proceeding, the tribe must designate the nonlawyer representative by filing a written authorization. If the tribe changes its designated representative or if the representative withdraws, the tribe must file a written substitution of representation or withdrawal.
Amended effective January 1, 1987; November 1, 2003; April 1, 2004; May 1, 2021; November 1, 2021.
Intervention lets someone who isn't yet a party step into a case that's already underway. Rule 24 splits that door into two: intervention of right and permissive intervention. A timely motion to intervene as of right succeeds when a statute grants an unconditional right to join, or when the movant has an interest in the property or transaction at stake and disposing of the case without that party could, as a practical matter, impair the movant's ability to protect it — unless an existing party already adequately represents that interest. Permissive intervention is discretionary: the court may allow someone in when a statute gives a conditional right to intervene, or when the outsider's claim or defense shares a common question of law or fact with the pending action, or when a governmental entity's claim or defense rests on a statute, executive order, or related regulation that entity administers. Either way, the court weighs whether letting the newcomer in will unduly delay or prejudice the existing parties, and the motion itself must be served on the parties and must spell out the grounds for intervention along with the claim or defense the mover wants to assert.
Rule 24(d) addresses a different problem: what happens when a party challenges the constitutionality of a Utah statute, or of a local government's ordinance or rule, in a case where the Attorney General or that governmental entity hasn't appeared. The rule requires the challenger to give formal, written notice — captioned as a Notice of Constitutional Challenge, describing the challenge, and attaching the paper that raises it — served by the deadline the party files the challenge itself. The Attorney General or other governmental entity then has a window to file a notice of intent to respond, followed by its own response, without having to fully intervene as a party. Skipping the notice doesn't waive the constitutional challenge, but it can lead the court to postpone the hearing until proper notice goes out.
Rule 24(e) gives Indian tribes a participation right in Indian Child Welfare Act proceedings that doesn't depend on formal intervention at all. A tribe can appear at hearings, address the court, receive notice, and submit information and recommendations without ever filing a motion to intervene — intervention is required only if the tribe wants affirmative relief from the court.