Federal Magistrate Recommends Denial of Motion to Dismiss Tobacco Trafficking Charge arising in Indian Country

Here are the materials so far in United States v. Nappi (W.D. N.Y.):

Nappi Motion to Dismiss

Federal Response

Magistrate R&R in US v Nappi

Federal Court Dismisses Suit over Coalbed Methane Ownership Dispute on Tribal Immunity Grounds

Here are the materials in Farmer Oil & Gas Properties v. Southern Ute Indian Tribe (D. Colo.):

DCT Order Granting Southern Ute Motion

Southern Ute Motion to Dismiss

Farmer Oil Response

Southern Ute Reply

EPA Record of Decision in MHA Nation Oil Refinery Project

Here.

Defense Contractor Sues Dept. of Defense over SBA Sec. 8(a) Race-Based Contracting (Excluding Indian Tribes)

Here is the complaint in Rothe Development, Inc. v. Dept. of Defense (D. D.C.):

Rothe Complaint

An excerpt:

Congressional amendments in 1986 (Pub. L. No. 99-272, § 18015, 100 Stat. 370) and 1988 (Pub. L. No. 100-656, § 207, 102 Stat. 3861, as amended by Pub. L. No. 101-37, § 6, 103 Stat. 72) also added “Indian tribes” and “Native Hawaiian Organizations” to the races deemed presumptively socially disadvantaged by 15 U.S.C. § 631(f)(1). However, ROTHE does not challenge the classifications “Indian tribes” and “Native Hawaiian Organizations” in this action. ROTHE understands the distinction in law drawn between “Native American” as a racial classification, on one hand, and an entity the United States has treaty or trust obligations towards, such as an “Indian tribe” or a “Native Hawaiian Organization” on the other. Cf. Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974) (legislation that singles out federally recognized Indian tribes is Constitutional “where the preference is reasonable and rationally designed to further Indian self-government”). ROTHE is only challenging the racial classification of section 8(a), which by definition includes only those groups currently classified by law as being “racial” groups: Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, and other minorities to be determined by the SBA (to date, Subcontinent Asian Americans).
Update: It appears the court resolved these questions in favor of the constitutionality of Section 8(a) in another case:

Update in Navajo Dine CARE v. Salazar Suit re Navajo Mine — Additional Update (11/6/12)

Here are the updated materials:

Complaint post

Navajo Intervention and Motion to Dismiss post

Diné CARE Response

Navajo Reply

Update: FINAL 2012-10-18 Dine C.A.R.E.,et al. v. Salazar Not. Supp. Auth.

IRS Newsletter with Updates on TEDBs and Tribal Trust Judgment Proceeds

Here:

ITG News Oct 2012

Opening Seventh Circuit Brief in Challenge to Martin Webb Payday Lending Company’s Forum Selection Clause

Here is the opening brief in Jackson v. Payday Financial LLC:

Jackson Opening Brief

Lower court materials here.

Mashantucket Pequot Refinancing Information

Here:

MPN Bondholder Presentation Aug 2012

MPN Bondholder Presentation Sept 2012

News coverage here.

MPN press release here.

Massachusetts Tribes Move to Intervene in KG Urban v. Patrick Case

Here are those materials:

2012-09-07_(40)_Memo in Support of Motion to Intervene and Exhibits

Mashpee Motion to Intervene [Rule 19 motion]

Federal Government Seizure of Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Company Account

News coverage here.

Federal complaint in United States v. $566,202 (W.D. Mo.) is here:

US Forfeiture Complaint