Here is the petition in Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Haaland:
Panel stage materials here.

Here is the petition in Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Haaland:
Panel stage materials here.

Yesterday, Justice Kagan asked about what bingo is:
There seems to be dispute whether this type of bingo by machine is the same as the bingo we know, people in a room calling out numbers.
p. 18, line 25 — p. 19, lines 1-3
In a colloquy with the tribe’s counsel, the Chief Justice also wondered aloud:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What would — what — what would you say it looks like?
p. 22, lines 4-25 — p. 23, lines 1-11
MR. MARTIN: I would say it looks like an electronic bingo machine that has a bingo —
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What makes it look like a bingo machine?
(Laughter.)
MR. MARTIN: Well, there’s a — let me
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: There’s a name on it that says bingo?
MR. MARTIN: Well, there’s actually a card and you can switch the cards by pushing a button to change the cards that you’re playing. Now, are there reels and lights that look — that would characterize —
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Are there people —
MR. MARTIN: — people would characterize it — yes.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: — calling out numbers and — people, somebody saying, you know, B-12 or —
MR. MARTIN: There — there in fact is part of our operations, Your Honor. My tribe’s operations is live-called bingo and it’s also one of the things the State of Texas —
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But that’s something different than the slot — slot machine bingo, right?
MR. MARTIN: It is different than the electronic machines, Your Honor, but they’ve complained about all of it.

The law of these bingo slot machines has effectively been settled for nearly 20 years after the Supreme Court denied cert in a pair of petitions from the United States on this question (which later led to regulations that effectively codified the rulings from the courts below that the government lost):


What is Class II bingo, a Supreme Court Justice might ask? Well, the General Counsel for the National Indian Gaming Commission is there to offer answers:

Here are the updated materials in Kewadin Casinos Gaming Authority v. Draganchuk (W.D. Mich.):
Prior post here.
Law360 reports the state court held the tribe in contempt for failure to respond to discovery requests. Everyone’s got a litigation strategy, I guess. You can watch the hearing below.

Here are the materials so far in Kewadin Casinos Gaming Authority v. Draganchuk (W.D. Mich.):
1-6 State Court Motion for Contempt
1-7 State Court Hearing Transcript on Motion to Dismiss
1-8 State Court Motion to Compel
1-9 State Court Denying Summary Disposition for Kewadin
1-10 State Court Order Denying Motion to Dismiss by Kewadin
1-11 State Court Order re Discovery Motion
1-12 State Court Order to Show Cause
1-13 State Court Motion to Dismiss
1-14 State Court Response to Discovery Motion

Prior federal court suit here.
Last Friday’s D.C. Circuit opinion explains one of the many reasons the Lansing casino project died.
Â
Here are the materials in Soloniewicz v. Sugar Factory LLC (Conn. S. Ct.):
Â
Here are the materials in United States v. Nickey:
Unpublished opinion:
Briefs:
You must be logged in to post a comment.