Menominee Indian Tribe v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, No. 09-C-496 (E.D. Wis., Nov. 4, 2010) (slip opinion).  This district court decision by Judge Griesbach concerns the ongoing effort to build an off-reservation tribal casino in Kenosha, Wis., along the I-94 corridor between Milwaukee and Chicago.  (We wrote an article on this all the way back in 2001: Light&Rand, "Are All Bets Off? Off-Reservation Gaming in Wisconsin," 5 Gaming Law Review 351 (2001).  Drop us a line if you'd like a pdf of the article.)  In this decision, we aren't cited, exactly.  Instead, the plaintiffs put forward a number of documents and requested that the district court take judicial notice of the same.  Our article with Alan Meister, "Questionable Federal 'Guidance' on Off-Reservation Indian Gaming: Legal and Economic Issues," 12 Gaming Law Review & Economics 194 (2008) (and ditto re requesting a pdf), was among the documents.  The court declined to take judicial notice because "there are arguments for and against this position advocated by the article."  Just like good academics (and a good economist), we examined the issue from multiple perspectives.

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).