Here are the materials in New York Times v. Dept. of Health and Human Services (S.D. N.Y.):
20 US Motion for Summary Judgment
23 Newspapers Motion for Summary Judgment
26 US Reply
28 Newspapers Reply
31 DCT Order
This Freedom of Information Act suit was brought by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and a reporter seeking to force the Indian Health Service (“IHS”) to release a report that it commissioned from a private consultant to investigate numerous acts of rape and sexual abuse committed by Stanley Patrick Weber, a former IHS pediatrician, against Native American children. IHS has taken the position that the report is protected from disclosure by a statute that affords confidentiality to reports on the “quality of medical care” — a position we reject. We also find that the report is not protected under the litigation privilege exemption of the Freedom of Information Act and thus order that it be produced.
Here are the materials in Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians of Utah v. U.S. Bank National Association (S.D. N.Y.):
1 Notice of Removal
1-1 State Court Complaint
28 Motion to Remand
58 DCT Order
Here are the materials in SEC v. Sugarman (S.D. N.Y.):
39 Motion to Dismiss
55 DCT Order
Details on the scheme from the order: Continue reading
UPS Cert Petition
New York Brief in Opposition
1. The Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act prohibits the knowing transportation of “a quantity” of more than 10,000 untaxed cigarettes in the “possession” of unauthorized persons. 18 U.S.C. § 2341(2). The first question presented is whether multiple shipments from different shippers may be aggregated to satisfy the 10,000-cigarette threshold.
2. The Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2009 exempts UPS by name if its tobacco-delivery agreement with New York is “honored” nationwide. 15 U.S.C. § 376a(e)(3)(B)(ii)(I). The second question presented is whether substantial compliance is a prerequisite to this statutory exemption.
Second Circuit materials here:
New York Opening Brief
New York Reply
DCT materials here.
Here is the 200+ page order in State of New York v. United Parcel Service (S.D. N.Y.):
526 DCT Order
Prior post here.
Here are the materials in State of New York v. United Parcel Service (S.D. N.Y.):
The fundamental reason why plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment and defendant is not is that when UPS was transporting unstamped cigarettes (how many is “TBD”), it was transporting contraband. Pre-amendment § 471 confirms that stamps were required, that taxability was presumed, and that the burden of proving otherwise was on UPS. UPS has not carried this burden. UPS is not entitled to rely on the judicially imposed injunctions or stays of enforcement obtained by Indian tribes, nor is it entitled to rely upon forbearance. It is also of no moment that there were difficulties in determining when tax was required to be paid or not, and it is also of no moment that the State had stood down on collection from reservation retailers altogether. At the end of the day, the situation — which may have advantaged reservation retailers — placed UPS in a precarious position; without its own statutory exemption or legal assurance, and in the absence of information as to ultimately taxability of the cigarettes they were shipping, transporting shipments was a risky business indeed. But this was a business risk. UPS could choose to undertake such risk or not. One thing has  always been clear: UPS has never had exemption from the CCTA.
Here is the opinion:
From the court’s syllabus:
Plaintiffs‐appellants (“plaintiffs”) appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Richard J. Sullivan, Judge). Plaintiffs are two Native American tribes, tribal regulatory agencies, and companies owned by the tribes that offered high interest, short‐term loans over the internet. The interest rates on the loans exceeded caps imposed by New York State law. When the New York State Department of Financial Services sought to bar out‐of‐state lenders from extending such loans to New York residents, the plaintiffs sued for a preliminary injunction, claiming that New York’s ban violated the Indian Commerce Clause. But plaintiffs bore the burden of proving that the challenged transactions fell within their regulatory domain, and the District Court held that they failed to establish a sufficient factual basis to find in their favor. Because this conclusion was a reasonable one, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the injunction.
Briefs here. Lower court materials here.