In-House Tribal Attorney for The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, located near Temecula, Riverside County, California, is seeking one or two attorneys to join its In-House Legal Dept. Experienced and entry-level will be considered. Preferred experience in all aspects of Indian law and environmental and natural resources law. Salary is competitive, dependent upon qualifications and experience, full benefit package and opportunity to work with a motivated and progressive team in beautiful Southern California wine country. Pechanga Office of the General Counsel provides legal opinions and assistance to Tribal Council, all departments of the Pechanga Tribal Government and Pechanga Development Corporation; oversees work of outside counsel; and limited service to tribal members in matters relating to tribal status. Qualifications for this position are as follows: Bachelors Degree from accredited college, must be admitted to practice before the California state bar or admitted to a state bar and willing to become a member of the California state bar, Minimum of (5) years experience in all aspects of American Indian law, with knowledge and experience in employment law, Intellectual Property, Indian Child Welfare Act, gaming law, contracts and litigation, ability to conduct legal and general research that is accurate and thorough, and have strong written and verbal advocacy skills. Application and full Job Announcement at http://www.pechanga-nsn.gov Send resumes and completed application to HR@pechanga-nsn.gov
Pechanga Band
Cert Stage Reply Brief in Jeffredo v. Macarro (Pechanga Disenrollments)
Here: Jeffredo Cert Stage Reply Brief
Other materials are here.
Pechanga Disenrollments Cert Opposition
Here: Macarro Cert Opp
Jeffredo v. Macarro Cert Petition re: Pechanga Disenrollments
Here: Jeffredo Cert Petition
Incidentally, a few days after the petitioners filed, the Ninth Circuit panel adopted an amended opinion (here).
Lower court materials are here.
Questions presented:
1. Is the Writ of Habeas Corpus under the Indian Civil Rights Act limited solely to tribal criminal proceedings instead of also including tribal civil proceedings which result in the disenrollment of life-long tribal citizens?
2. Does the combination of “disenrollment,” which is the stripping away of Appellants’ life-long tribal citizenship and the current and potential restrictions placed on Appellants, constitute a severe restraint on their liberty so as to satisfy the “detention” requirement of Section 1303 of the Indian Civil Rights Act?
3. Does the disenrollment of life-long tribal members, by itself, constitute a severe restraint of liberty so as to satisfy the “detention” requirement of the Indian Civil Rights Act?
4. Did the Appellants exhaust their tribal remedies by going through every Pechanga Tribal appeal proceeding available to contest their disenrollment?
I don’t see how this is certworthy. There’s no split in authority alleged by the petitioners (they didn’t even try to assert a split with the Second Circuit which decided a somewhat similar case (Poodry) years ago). I imagine the Supreme Court one day will reconsider the National Farmers Union tribal court exhaustion doctrine but this doesn’t seem to be a very good vehicle for that because it’s not a tribal court jurisdiction case at the heart of the doctrine. Plus, it’s an internal tribal matter with no national importance whatsoever (other than the side-show of Indian gaming wealth).
Finally, despite the dissent from District Court Judge Wilkens, I don’t think the Roberts Court is inclined to expand habeas rights in any way, let alone to benefit Indian people in this way. As Justice Holmes told Justice Brandeis, the Supreme Court is not there to do justice.
Ninth Circuit Declines Jurisdiction over Pechanga Disenrollments
Here is the opinion in Jeffredo v. Macarro. There was a dissent (by a district court judge sitting by designation), however, which seemed to focus on the apparent “greed” of the Pechanga people in disenrolling tribal members.
Here are the briefs:
An excerpt from the majority: Continue reading
Federal Court Dismisses “Habeas” Claim against Pechanga Band
Here is the opinion in Liska v. Macarro, where a non-enrolled Pechanga man tried to enter the reservation, was turned away, and sued in federal court (S.D. Cal.) on a habeas theory — Liska v Macarro DCT Order
The materials:
Pechanga Disenrollment Dispute – Salinas v. Barron
The California Court of Appeals (4th Dist., Div. 2) decided Salinas v. Barron, another in the series of cases involving the Pechanga Band’s various membership disputes. This case involves the disenrollment of the plaintiffs in LaMere v. Superior Court, 131 Cal. App. 4th 1059 (2005).
From the opinion:
In LaMere, the plaintiffs were members of the Pechanga Band of Temecula Luiseo Mission Indians (the Band); the defendants were members of the Band’s enrollment committee. The defendants had allegedly commenced proceedings to disenroll the plaintiffs, in violation of the Band’s own laws. This court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction of the dispute.
Continue reading
Cal. Voters Approve Tribal Gaming Compacts
From Indianz:
California voters approve gaming compacts
Four California tribes won resounding support for their gaming compacts on Tuesday.
Turtle Talk 