TEMECULA —— The word "disenrollment" is not in any Indian language. Yet, the term has infiltrated the Indian vernacular in recent years, mostly as casinos have sprung up and tribes around the nation have hit the jackpot.

The disenrollment phenomenon in California, which has embroiled the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians in recent years, is testing a 50-year-old federal law that gives state courts the authority to interpret tribal law in civil and criminal matters.

That law —— Public Law 280, passed by the federal government in 1953 —— gives Indians the right to sue other Indians, but is also contested by some tribes, including Pechanga, which says it tramples on their sovereignty rights.

More than 130 members of the Pechanga tribe who were disenrolled last year have filed two lawsuits against members of the tribe's enrollment committee. They contend their disenrollment violated tribal law and they are seeking financial damages for the losses they are suffering, including approximately $15,000 per month in payments for adult members, plus other benefits.

If they are successful, it could have broad repercussions on the rights of Indians to sue other Indians in the six states in which Public Law 280 applies. If they're not successful, it could be a severe blow to justice for disenrolled tribal members, said Jon Velie, one of the attorneys representing the disenrolled Pechanga members and a specialist on Indian law and sovereignty.

One group that will be watching the Pechanga cases closely are disenrolled members formerly of the Redding Rancheria, a small tribe in Northern California. They tried to overturn tribal law, citing Public Law 280 in court, but were rebuffed.

"Pechanga's lawsuits are important to all of us," said Robert Edwards, a disenrolled member of Redding Rancheria. "If the court rules in their favor, it will be like a mudslide, because everyone that's been disenrolled will have their day in court as well."

'Indian Country'

Public Law 280 was enacted by Congress, taking authority from the federal government and giving it to states in what was known as "Indian country" at the time, according to American Indian Development Associates, an organization assisting tribes with education, health and justice issues.

It was enacted during a time when the federal government was trying to assimilate Indians, although senators said "lawlessness on the reservations and the accompanying threat to Anglos living nearby was the foremost concern" when the law was passed, according to the organization. The law gave courts in certain states the power to deal with civil lawsuits and criminal issues, Velie said.

It started as an effort to transfer authority only to California because its tribes were the most fractured as a result of the Spanish mission period, Velie said. During the legislative process, it was expanded to five other states: Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Wisconsin and Alaska. The remaining 44 states were given the opportunity to take the same authority if they wanted to in the future, according to the organization.

But at the time, Public Law 280 satisfied neither states nor Indian tribes. The states chafed because Congress did not supply federal funding to compensate for their new legal authority. The tribes felt the law was an affront to their status as sovereign nations, a feeling that still resonates, as evidenced by the Pechanga defendants' response to being sued by the disenrolled members.

Congress made additions to the law in 1968, creating the Indian Civil Rights Act, Velie said. Part of this act gave the six states the opportunity to give back some or all of their jurisdiction to the federal government, which would then decide whether or not to take it back. The tribes have no say in the matter.

A few of the states gave back some of their authority; California was not among them, Velie said.

Pechanga lawsuits

The two Pechanga lawsuits are working their way through the court system. The first was appealed by the Pechanga members when a Riverside County Superior Court judge decided the case could be heard in state court. The second was just filed in March and has not been heard yet.

Because the Pechanga defendants appealed the judge's ruling that the first lawsuit could be heard in Superior Court —— which means it is going up the ladder of the legal system just to see if the original court can hear the case —— it could take a while before the case itself is actually considered here in Riverside, if it even makes it that far.

The two lawsuits could wend their way all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court just for the purpose of ascertaining whether they can be considered at all under Public Law 280, Velie said.

The plaintiffs have run into some turbulence recently in an appellate court with the first lawsuit, which contends the defendants violated tribal law with the disenrollments.

Before oral arguments Wednesday in front of a 4th District State Court of Appeal panel in Riverside, the court provided a tentative decision to the attorneys stating that it would reverse the lower court's ruling, said Brian Unitt, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs.

"Essentially, they felt this action was not just against the individual defendants, but affected the tribe's sovereignty and ability to choose (its) membership," Unitt said.

The plaintiffs' attorneys argued that the lawsuit is valid under Public Law 280 because it attempts to uphold tribal law, Unitt added. A decision by the appellate court is expected within three months. If the ruling is not in their favor, the plaintiffs could take their case to both the California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court; neither would be obligated to review it, Unitt said.

The 130-plus people first sued to stop the tribe from disenrolling them when that scenario was imminent; when that failed, they made individual members of the enrollment committee their legal targets.

"The tribe's determination (of membership) exists within the Constitution," Velie said. "It's voted on and affirmed by the people, like any democracies.

"What these (enrollment committee members) are trying to do is make a more restrictive determination of membership than what exists in tribal law. They think they can do it without any accountability in any court."

Pechanga Tribal Chairman Mark Marcarro said through e-mail that he can't speak about litigation the tribe is involved in. He has consistently maintained, however, that who is and who is not a Pechanga Indian is an internal tribal matter and the courts have no business interfering.

Nuances of law

So far, Public Law 280 has held up to the Pechanga plaintiffs' advantage. That wasn't the case, however, for disenrolled members of Redding Rancheria.

The biggest difference between the two cases is that Redding Indians tried to overturn tribal law, while the Pechanga plaintiffs are trying to enforce it, Velie said. Like the disenrolled Pechanga members, the Redding plaintiffs sued individual members of the Redding tribe, but the Shasta County Superior Court judge that considered their lawsuit maintained the case was essentially against the whole tribe and refused to hear it under Public Law 280, Velie said.

The disenrolled members chose to appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. At the end of May, the Supreme Court opted not to take on the Redding case, without citing a reason, which added even more significance to the Pechanga cases, Velie said.

If the Pechanga plaintiffs are ultimately successful, it would give the disenrolled Redding members a more strategic argument to use, Velie said.

"We have found a pathway in which we can find relief against individuals who are violating tribal law," he said.

Education is key

Even though Public Law 280 has been around for more than 50 years, there have not been a lot of court cases dealing with disenrollments, said John Gomez Jr., one of the disenrolled Pechanga members.

As a result, many people outside the tribes, including legislators and judges, don't realize the full extent of the law, said Gomez. So he and other disenrolled Indians are trying to educate these groups, many of whom subscribe to the belief that Indian tribal sovereignty trumps everything else, Gomez said.

"For a lot of people, and even lawmakers and the courts, they believe 'sovereignty, sovereignty, sovereignty,' until they read the law and see in Indian country we have this law that basically says tribes don't have immunity from these types of issues," Gomez said.

The judge who presided over the first Pechanga lawsuit, Judge Charles Field, was one of the rare few who understands the distinctions of the law, Gomez said.

"(He) actually read through what we were presenting and realized, 'Hey, they're not suing the tribe. They're suing these individuals for something they did that is conceivably outside the scope and authority of their duties and that's allowed under Public Law 280,'" Gomez said.

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