Whether the Seventh Circuit erred in holding that Petitioner's post-judgment motion to intervene for the sole purpose of filing a petition for certiorari was untimely

QUESTION PRESENTED In Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, this Court will determine whether the Sixth Circuit erred in holding that the Kentucky Attorney General’s motion to intervene after the panel decision solely to continue the appeal was untimely. In so doing, this Court is also likely to provide clarity on the legal standard courts of appeals should apply in such situations. This petition presents identical questions and should be held pending Cameron. Here, the Seventh Circuit denied Petitioner Edward Hedican’s motion to intervene on appeal for the sole purpose of seeking this Court’s review. The court did not question Petitioner’s legal interest in the case, the potential impairment of his interest, the government’s inadequate representation of his interest, or his statutory right to intervene. Instead, the court held that “Edward Hedican had [the] opportunity to intervene before the case was argued to the panel many months ago,” and for that reason alone denied intervention. The question presented is: Did the Seventh Circuit err in holding that Petitioner’s post-judgment motion to intervene for the sole purpose of filing a petition for certiorari in this Court was untimely?