Here are the materials so far in MGM Resorts Global Development LLC v. Dept. of Interior (D.D.C.):
24-1 State & Tribal Sovereigns Motion to Intervene
27 MGM Response to Motion to Dismiss
33 Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss
34 MGM Opposition to Motion to Intervene
36 Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene
38 DCT Order Granting Motion to Intervene
We posted the complaint here.
Here is the opinion in Jamul Action Committee v. Simermeyer.
Briefs here.
Here is the opinion:
An excerpt:
This is a case about how California law applies to the delicate juncture of executive power, federalism, and tribal sovereignty. Under the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA; 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.), the United States Secretary of the Interior (Interior Secretary) may permit casino-style gaming on certain land taken into federal trust for an Indian tribe, so long as the Governor of the state where the land is located concurs. But nowhere in the California Constitution is the Governor granted explicit authority to concur in this cooperative-federalism scheme. We must decide whether the
Governor nonetheless has the authority to concur in the Interior Secretary’s determination to allow gaming on tribal trust land in California.What we hold is that California law empowers the Governor to concur.
Briefs here.
Here:
Lower court materials here.
Here is the complaint in Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community v. State of California (E.D. Cal.):
Here is the complaint in Cherokee Nation v. Dept. of the Interior (D.D.C.):
Here are the materials in Peoria Tribe v. Campbell (N.D. Okla.):
Here are the materials in Cherokee Nation v. Stitt (W.D. Okla.):
125-1 Tribes Motion for Summary Judgment
126 State Motion for Summary Judgment
128 Wichita Tribes Motion for Summary Judgment
142 State Response to Wichita Tribes
Case tag here.
