Having said that, I must agree that the Supreme Court may pick and choose who gets to intervene, without offering any reasons for doing so. In the extreme case a Supreme Court judge could lawfully accept, or veto, an intervention by an interested party for purely personal reasons. The public doesn't know why the decision was made, nor may the public apply to have the reasons revealed.

At first glance, that seems to be a glaring shortcoming in the workings of the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, the resolution in this case is that additional time was made for all applicants to be heard. That's the proper outcome, even though it was achieved in a less than perfect way.