This case is a continuation of the federal government's illegal practice of exerting pressure on the U.S. judiciary, which is an independent branch of powers (I think this court felt the same pressure for itself when happened offensive against its justices under the pretext of judicial ethics reform).

I filed the same motion to intervene in this case as the states, citing the same articles of law and court precedents (they are the same for everyone), but with my own reasons and arguments, which are completely different from the arguments of the states.

Ninth Circuit denied my motion like previously the states' motion. But if the court considered the states' motion for almost three months, obliging the parties to submit their responses to this motion and giving the opportunity to another 17 republican states to file their amicus brief in support of this motion, then the court considered my motion at cosmic speed in 2 business days without analyzing it in any way in detail my arguments from the motion, but only by writing on 1 piece of paper a couple of words, while the text of the refusal to the states consists of more than 10 pages, where the court examines in detail all the arguments of the states and all the counterarguments of the parties.

June 26, 2024 states filed their petition for a writ of certiorari to this court, which was placed on the docket June 28, 2024 as No. 23-1353 Kansas, et al. v. Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.

Did the Ninth Circuit err when it consider and denied my motion to intervene with sufficient interests in 2 business days without receiving before that responses from the parties to my motion and without having compared my arguments from the motion with parties' arguments from the responses in its order.

Did the Ninth Circuit err in denying a motion to intervene without receiving party responses and without thoroughly analyzing the arguments within two business days