Here are those materials:
BMIC Council Motion to Dismiss
BMIC Gaming Commission Motion to Dismiss
BMIC Motion to Dismiss LTBB Amended Complaint
Here is the State’s amended complaint.
Meanwhile, a Sixth Circuit panel is currently considering BMIC’s motion to strike its opponents briefs:
Here:
State of Michigan Appellee Brief
Here is a pic of the now-shuttered BMIC Vanderbilt Casino:
And some lovely intertribal rhetoric:
Not surprisingly, the Sixth Circuit granted en banc review of the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Regents of the University of Michigan decision, which struck down Prop. 2, Michigan’s anti-affirmative action constitutional amendment.
The order is here.
News coverage here.
Here is today’s opinion in Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Regents of the University of Michigan.
An excerpt:
Proposal 2 is a successful voter-initiated amendment to the Michigan Constitution. In relevant part, it prohibits Michigan’s public colleges and universities from granting “preferential treatment to[] any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.” Mich. Const. art. I, § 26. Our task is to determine whether Proposal 2 is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Fortunately, the slate is not blank. The Supreme Court has twice held that equal protection does not permit the kind of political restructuring that Proposal 2 effected. See Washington v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 458 U.S. 457 (1982); Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969). Applying Hunter and Seattle, we find that Proposal 2 unconstitutionally alters Michigan’s political structure by impermissibly burdening racial minorities. Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the Defendants-Appellees and order the court to enter summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Here are those briefs (so far):
BMIC Motion to Stay Injunction
Here is the opinion in United States v. Mackety.
Here is a link to the article. And links to the materials in the underlying complaint here and here (from How Appealing).
An excerpt from the article:
The Belle Meade Country Club in Nashville has about 600 voting members. None of them are women, and none of them are black. But one of them is a federal judge.
In a confidential 10-to-8 decision last month, the Judicial Council of the Sixth Circuit, which hears misconduct complaints about federal judges in Tennessee and three other states, said the judge could keep his membership at Belle Meade.
The ruling opens windows on two odd institutions. One is a fading country club that was once an arbiter of success in Nashville’s social, political and business circles. The other is the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which sits in Cincinnati and is surely the most dysfunctional federal appeals court in the nation.
“The record before this court paints a picture of Belle Meade as an old boys’ club that considers and admits Caucasian male applicants on a different basis than African-American and female applicants,” Judge R. Guy Cole Jr. wrote in a dissent from last month’s ruling. “We federal judges must sometimes make sacrifices for the honor of the office we hold, and the judge’s membership in Belle Meade should have been one of them.”
Here is the opinion in Northville Downs v. Governor.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.