Art Larson v. Michael Hoenig, General Counsel, National Indian Gaming Commission, et al.
I DOES PETITIONET AT LARSON, A U.S.CITITRAT WIH FEDERALLY.VFCOGNIZED INDHN. TRIBES OPEVATYNG IQRACASSIE GAMING BUSINESSES 1N 28 -NON 4ZUSLS SANKINGG VEREION OF HIS PVEVIOUSLY CopyRUGHHTED LAND VECISTEVED H POKnD 7 22NS 2L 0 SWIN 2H SHH'E AND STAFF ATTONEYS IN THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT AGKINSt PRO SE ( LITIGANTS PLAYED N PALT IN PETITCONER ART LARSON'S PRo ) SE MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO PROCEED [ON APPEAL] IN VOEMA PAUPERIS" BENG My CHIEF JUDGE DENIED o AND SENiO JUDGE WICUIAM J. BAUER M. KENDALLABROGATED Sna2 AS AN IMPATAL ABITER C +f ICE OF GENELAL COUNSEL FαGCO+E NATIONAE INDIAN GAMINC COUMISSION (NGE) SNAA SUIT BROUGHT.BY ETITOR ARTLAZSON, BEGXNING WIT NFur SERVINC TE NAMED DEFENDANTS TIENE COURTS (NOMATERN DISTRCT FOR LUNOS V2 (NIHAL DSOUM PILOT PMOSEG
Does the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause require states to recognize the right of individuals to participate in commercial gaming businesses?