Rincon Band v. Schwarzenegger, 602 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2010). In this portion of the landmark litigation regarding tribal-state revenue sharing, two of our articles are cited: Rand & Light, "How Congress Can and Should 'Fix' the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act: Recommendations for Law and Policy Reform," 13 Virginia Journal of Social Policy and Law 396 (2006), and Rand, "Caught in the Middle: How State Politics, State Law, and State Courts Constrain Tribal Influence over Indian Gaming," 90 Marquette Law Review 971 (2007). Incidentally, Kathryn's "Caught in the Middle" article also was cited by the Florida Supreme Court, as part of the protracted tug-of-war between the state and the Seminole Indian Tribe over Class III gaming. See Florida House of Representatives v. Crist, 999 So.2d 601 (Fla. 2008).
Seneca-Cayuga Tribe v. NIGC, 327 F.3d 1019 (10th Cir. 2003). In this case, part of more landmark litigation over Class II machines, the court cites to Kathryn's early article on tribal sovereignty and Indian gaming, "There Are No Pequots on the Plains: Assessing the Success of Indian Gaming," 5 Chapman Law Review 47 (2002). That article inspired a chapter in our first book, Indian Gaming and Tribal Sovereignty: The Casino Compromise (2005).
And finally, though it cites to an article that has nothing to do with Indian gaming (we do write in other areas, you know!), we are cited in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 631 F.3d 213 (5th Cir. 2011). This case is about race-based affirmative action in university admissions. We wrote an article about the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in the University of Michigan cases, framed by our experience teaching at the University of North Dakota. The article is Rand & Light, "Teaching Race Without a Critical Mass: Reflections on Affirmative Action and the Diversity Rationale," 54 Journal of Legal Education 316 (2004).