Ninth Circuit Briefs in Stand Up for California! v. Dept. of Interior [No. 18-16830]

Here:

Opening Brief

North Fork Brief

Federal Brief

Reply

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Allows Pequots to Amend Complaint re: Improper Political Influence over Zinke in Gaming Compact Approval

Here are the new materials in State of Connecticut v. Dept. of Interior (D.D.C.):

60-1 Mashantucket Motion to File Amended Complaint

60-2 First Amended Complaint

62 Interior Opposition

63 MGM Opposition

65 Reply

66 Mashantucket Notice of Supplemental Authority

67 MGM Notice of Supplemental Authority

68 Interior Response to Notice

69 Plaintiffs Response to MGM Notice

70 Mashantucket Reply

72 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Federal Court Dismisses Connecticut & Mashantucket Pequot Claims re: Gaming Procedures

Here are the materials in State of Connecticut v. Zinke (D.D.C.):

1 Complaint

9 Plaintiffs MSJ

11-1 MGM Motion to Intervene

18 Interior Motion for Partial Dismiss

22 Interior Opposotion to 11

23 Plaintiffs Opposition to 11

27 Plaintiffs Oppositon to 18

29 MGM Reply in Support of 11

32 Interior Reply in Support of 18

51-1 Plaintiffs Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to 18

55 Interior Response to 51

56 Plaintiffs Reply re 51

59 DCT Order

Interior and North Fork Rancheria Prevail over Stand Up for California on Tribe’s Gaming Compact Procedures

Here are the materials in Stand Up for California! v. Dept.of Interior (E.D. Cal.):

28 sufc motion for stay

29 sufc motion for summary j

37 north fork rancheria motion for summary j

39 north fork opposition to 29

41 interior motion for summary j

43 interior response to 29

44 reply in support of 29

46 sufc opposition to motions for summary j

51 north fork reply in support of 37

52 interior reply in support of 41

58 dct order

Alabama v. United States Materials

The Southern District of Alabama dismissed Alabama’s challenge to the Department of Interior’s Class III procedures, on grounds of ripeness.

Here is the opinion, courtesy of Indianz.

us-motion-to-dismiss

poarch-creek-motion-to-dismiss

alabama-response-brief

us-reply-brief

poarch-creek-reply-brief

alabama-supplemental-brief

us-supplemental-brief

poarch-band-supplemental-brief

Kickapoo v. Texas — State’s Opposition to Cert Petition

The State of Texas filed its opposition to the cert petition filed by the Kickapoo Tribe way back in February. Here is the brief — texas-cert-opp

And here is our previous post on the lower court portion of this case (with briefs), as well as a link to the Supreme Court Project’s site.

If you’ll recall, despite a USSG recommendation to deny the petition, the Court still asked for a response from the State.

PPI v. Kempthorne — Challenge to Class III Secretarial Procedures

Here’s another one, this time in the Northern District of Florida, and this one involving the Seminole Nation.

Here is the request for a preliminary injunction and here is the complaint.

Kickapoo v Texas — Texas Asked to Respond to Cert Petition

Mildly interesting development in the Kickapoo case regarding the CA5’s decision to strike down the so-called Class III procedures (aka the “Seminole” fix). Kickapoo filed the cert petition, a tribal amicus brief supported the petition, but then Texas declined to respond (which is a respondent’s prerogative, especially in a case where there does not appear to be a clean circuit split). The US, the defendant in the original case, filed a brief urging the SCT to decline the case, although the brief went into detail into just how wrong the government thought the CA5 decision was.

Now the Court has asked for Texas to respond. In my limited experience with the Court’s internal dynamics, the Court might do this as a means of delaying a decision on a cert petition, but for what, in this case, I don’t know.