1st Circuit Notes Split Re Whether Standing is Required to Invervene if Original Parties are Maintaining a Case or Controversy

Per Maine v. Johnson, --- F.3d ----, 2007 WL 2258265 (1st Cir. Aug 08, 2007) (NO. 04-1363, 04-1375):

Since we have sustained state jurisdiction as to all of the sites, this statutory argument does not affect the ultimate outcome. Further, the EPA argues that the intervenors have no standing to make an argument that has been made neither by the EPA (in defense as to the nineteen sites) nor by Maine (as to the other two sites). The standing argument is, as is often the case, more complicated than the merits of the claim--partly because of conflict in the case law and partly because more than one standing concept is involved. FN12

FN12. E.g., Mangual v. Rotger-Sabat, 317 F.3d 45, 61 & n. 5 (1st Cir.2003) ("[T]he circuits are split on the question of whether standing is required to intervene if the original parties are still pursuing the case and thus maintaining a case or controversy....").