Whether leave to intervene to file a petition for a writ of certiorari may properly be denied for a failure to show 'exceptional' circumstances and 'imperative' reasons, even though the movant meets all criteria for intervention as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)

1. Petitioner Office and Professional Employee s In ternational Union (“OPEIU”), a labor union, filed un fair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), challenging an employer’s discharge of several union supporters during an orga nizing campaign. The employer sought to forestall the agency proceeding by arguing that certain NLRB offi cers were unconstitutionally insulated from removal, and the district court agreed, issuing an injunction preventing the NLRB from processing these charges. Breaking with every other court of appeals to address the issue, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that all properly-appointed Executive officers with unconsti tutional removal restric tions exercise “unlawful pow er” that inflicts a “here-and-now injury” that warrants immediate injunctive relief. App. 31a, 34a. Following several prior attempts to intervene to de fend its interests, OPEIU sought leave to intervene for the sole purpose of filing a petition for a writ of certio rari to this Court. Despite finding the motion timely and that the NLRB no longer adequately represented OPEIU’s interests, the Fifth Circuit denied OPEIU’s motion because it grants intervention only “in an ex ceptional case for imperative reasons.” App. 50a. The question presented is: 1. Whether leave to intervene to file a petition for a writ of certiorari may properly be denied for a fail ure to show “exceptional” circumstances and “im perative” reasons, even though the movant meets all criteria for intervention as of right under Fed eral Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a).