Here:
Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials in State of Texas v. Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (E.D. Tex.):
76 Tribe Motion to Set Aside Judgment
80 Tribe Reply in Support of 76
99 Tribe Motion for Summary Judgment
105 Tribe Reply in Support of 99
106 Texas Reply in Support of 74
Here are the materials in Stockbridge-Munsee Community v. State of Wisconsin (W.D. Wis.):
76 motion to file amended complaint
85 stockbridge-munsee opposition to motion for sanctions
Prior post here.
Here are the materials in No Casino in Plymouth v. Zinke:
Ione Band Response [No Casino]
Here are the materials in County of Amador v. Dept. of Interior:
Amador County En Banc Petition
Panel materials in both cases here.
Here is the complaint in the matter of State of Connecticut et al v. Zinke et al, 17-cv-02564 (D.D.C. Nov. 29, 2017):
Doc. 1 – Civil Cover Sheet and Complaint
With the State of Connecticut, the Mohegan and Mashantucket Pequot Tribes have filed suit against the Secretary of Interior after the Department failed to treat submitted
amendments to their gaming compact as deemed approved and publish in the Federal Register notice that the amendments are deemed approved.
Here are the materials in Club One Casino v. Dept. of Interior (E.D. Cal.):
Here are the materials in Comanche Nation of Oklahoma v. Zinke (W.D. Okla.):
Here are the materials in Stockbridge-Munsee Community v. State of Wisconsin (W.D. Wis.):
Here is the opinion in County of Amador v. Dept. of Interior. UPDATE: And the unpublished opinion in No Casino in Plymouth v. Zinke.
An excerpt:
This case involves a dispute over a proposed casino in Amador County, California. Plaintiff, the County of Amador (“County”), challenges a 2012 record of decision (“ROD”) issued by the United States Department of the Interior (“Interior”) in which the agency announced its intention to take land into trust for the benefit of the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (“Ione Band” or “Band”). The ROD also allowed the Ione Band to build a casino complex and conduct gaming on the land once it is taken into trust. Reviewing Interior’s decision under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), we conclude that the agency did not err. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s award of summary judgment to Interior and the Ione Band.
Briefs here.
Here:
Question presented:
Whether NIGC legal opinions that determine whether Indian lands are eligible for gaming under IGRA are reviewable final agency actions.
Lower court materials here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.