Here is the complaint in Everi Payments Inc. v. State of Washington Dept. of Revenue (Super. Ct. — Thurston Cty.):
gaming
Seminole Tribe’s Good Faith IGRA Suit Survives Florida’s Motion to Dismiss
Tenth Circuit Briefs in Pueblo of Pojoaque v. State of New Mexico
Federal Court Rejects South Dakota Effort to Quickly Prevail in Dispute with Flandreau over Liquor Regs and Casino Taxes
Here are the materials in Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Gerlach (D. S.D.);:
38 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
50 Flandreau Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
51 Opposition to Flandreau Motion
We posted the complaint here.
Kansas’ Challenge to Quapaw Trust Land Acquisition Dismissed
Here are the materials in State of Kansas ex rel. Schmidt v. National Indian Gaming Commission (D. Kan.):
Ninth Circuit Denies En Banc Review in Pauma Compact Dispute, Issues Amended Order
Here is the amended order in Pauma Band of Luiseño Indians v. State of California.
En banc petitions here:
Ninth Circuit Briefs and Materials in Jamul Action Committee v. Chaudhuri
Ninth Circuit Oral Argument in Tohono O’Odham Nation v. Arizona
Supreme Court Cert Petition Filed in CACGEC v. Chaudhuri
Here is the petition in Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County v. Chaudhuri:
Questions presented:
1. Whether Congress, by enacting legislation permitting an Indian tribe to purchase land on the open market and to hold it in “restricted fee,” created “Indian country,” thereby completely divesting a state of its territorial sovereignty over that land, despite the absence of any explicit statutory language reflecting congressional intent to transfer sovereignty to the tribe?
2. Whether the Indian Commerce Clause (U.S. Const., art. I, § 8) gives Congress authority to completely divest a state of the sovereignty it had
previously exercised over land for more than two centuries and transfer that sovereignty to an Indian tribe by enacting legislation permitting an Indian tribe to buy such land on the open market and to hold it in “restricted fee.”3. Whether the mere congressional designation of “restricted fee” status on tribally owned land pursuant to the Indian Nonintercourse Act (25 U.S.C. § 177) implies an intent to transfer governmental power over that land to the tribe?
Lower court materials here.
Materials in Seminole Tribe v. Florida
This is the IGRA good faith suit brought by the tribe in the Northern District of Florida:
You must be logged in to post a comment.