Sixth Circuit – Page 12

Update in Patrick Devlin Suit against Michigan Gaming Control Board

August 10, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is today’s Sixth Circuit opinion in Devlin v. Kalm.

An excerpt:

Plaintiff Patrick J. Devlin appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss based on the abstention doctrine and the court’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. Plaintiff argues that his termination from the Michigan Gaming Control Board was retaliatory in violation of his First Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988 and his due process rights, after he made disparaging remarks to the press about the Michigan Attorney General and the application of the state’s gaming laws to Native American tribes.

Sixth Circuit Issues Opinion against EPA in Clear Air Act Ruling involving Natural Gas on the Saginaw Chippewa’s Isabella Reservation

August 8, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Summit Petroleum Corp. v. EPA.

Harvest Institute Freedman v. Salazar, Sixth Circuit

July 16, 2012July 16, 2012Kate Fort1 Comment

The Sixth Circuit dismissed the Harvest Institute Freedman Federation’s claim against the Cobell v. Salazar settlement:

The Harvest plaintiffs claim that the Freedmen were wrongfully excluded from ownership of the IIM Accounts due to racism, and that it perpetuates racial discrimination for Congress to not address their claims at the same time that it addresses the claims of the Cobell class. Along with their Complaint, the Harvest plaintiffs moved the district court for a temporary restraining order; the United States responded by filing Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, respectively.

Brief of Appellants

Brief of Appellees (Government)

Reply Brief

Opinion (unpublished)

Bay Mills Indian Community, Council Members, and Gaming Commission Motions to Dismiss Amended State/LTBB Complaints

December 14, 2011December 13, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are those materials:

BMIC Motion to Dismiss

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:

Referral of Motion to Strike

Bay Mills Indian Community Reply Briefs in Vanderbilt Casino Sixth Circuit Appeal

October 18, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

BMIC Reply

BMIC Motion to Strike Appellee Briefs

Appellee Briefs in State of Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community (CA6)

September 29, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

LTBB Appellee Brief

State of Michigan Appellee Brief

Here is a pic of the now-shuttered BMIC Vanderbilt Casino:

And some lovely intertribal rhetoric:

Continue reading →

Sixth Circuit Grants En Banc Review of Affirmative Action Decision

September 12, 2011Kate Fort

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.

Opening Brief in Bay Mills Appeal to the Sixth Circuit re: Vanderbilt Casino

August 31, 2011August 30, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

BMIC Opening Brief in CA6 Appeal

Sixth Circuit Panel Strikes Down Michigan’s Prop. 2 (Anti-Affirmative Action Statute)

July 1, 2011July 1, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

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.