Here is the complaint in MGM Resorts Global Development LLC v. Dept. of Interior (D.D.C.):
Here are the new materials in State of Connecticut v. Dept. of Interior (D.D.C.):
Prior post here.
Here are the materials in State of Connecticut v. Zinke (D.D.C.):
Here are the materials in Stand Up for California! v. Dept.of Interior (E.D. Cal.):
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.
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
If you’ll recall, despite a USSG recommendation to deny the petition, the Court still asked for a response from the State.
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.