Disenrolled Pechanga members look to U.S. Supreme Court for help

By: DEIRDRE NEWMAN - Staff Writer | Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:54 PM PST ∞

An appeal has been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the justices to decide whether a case involving disenrolled Pechanga tribal members can be heard in a California court.

Thursday was the deadline to file the appeal, and the appeal documents were received by the Supreme Court on Thursday morning, said Brian Unitt, one of the attorneys working on behalf of the plaintiffs.

The original lawsuit was filed by 11 disenrolled members of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians on behalf of more than 130 family members. The suit tried to stop the disenrollment from happening. When it occurred anyway, a second lawsuit was filed last March seeking damages for the financial losses of the disenrolled members, which, to date, stands at more than $50 million, said Jon Velie, another attorney working on the case who specializes in tribal law and sovereignty.

This second lawsuit is on hold, pending the Supreme Court's decision, Unitt said. If the Supreme Court decides to hear the appeal and rules that the Superior Court has jurisdiction to hear the first lawsuit, the plaintiffs' attorneys would file a motion to combine the two lawsuits, Unitt said.

A lot is riding on the Supreme Court's decision on whether to hear the appeal, Velie said.

If the case is heard, and the court rules in the plaintiffs' favor, the decision could set a precedent for other beleaguered Indians who have been disenrolled from their tribes around the country, Velie said. Conversely, if the justices opt not to hear the case, it would leave some Indians without a venue to hold tribal officials accountable, he said.

Pechanga Tribal Chairman Mark Macarro could not be reached for comment Thursday via phone or e-mail. He has said previously that the sovereignty of tribes allows them to determine citizenship.

The appeal is a test of a federal statute, known as Public Law 280, which gives some state courts, including California, the authority to interpret tribal law in civil and criminal matters. It's the interpretation of Public Law 280 on which the appeal hinges.

This law, as Velie sees it, gives individual Indians the right to sue other Indians in the California court system. A subsection of this law states that tribal laws must be given "full force and effect," which is exactly what the plaintiffs are asking for, he said. They want the tribal constitution, which conferred tribal membership upon them, to be upheld.

"The other side arrogantly argues that they are the tribe," Velie said. "They are no more the tribe than our clients are. ... They're trying to say tribal laws can't apply and there's no court in which you can say they do."

A Riverside Superior Court judge agreed with the plaintiffs that their case could be heard in that court. However, when the defendants appealed, the 4th District Court of Appeal rejected that argument. The plaintiffs then appealed to the California Supreme Court, which in November rejected taking on the case, Unitt said.

The two attorneys are hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide to hear the case because it involves the federal statute, Unitt said. If the court decides not to, it could deliver a devastating blow to Public Law 280, Velie said.

The U.S. Supreme Court does not have a deadline by which to decide whether to hear the case, Velie said. But he anticipates a decision within two to three months, he said.

The second lawsuit, filed in March 2005, accuses 30-plus tribal members of influencing the disenrollments. As part of that second lawsuit, the plaintiffs are seeking a minimum of $38 million in damages, based on the $15,000 monthly payments each adult member received while still in the tribe. Those payments were discontinued after they were disenrolled.

Contact staff writer Deirdre Newman at (951) 676-4315, Ext. 2623, or dnewman@californian.com.