But the defendants' attorneys argued that the Superior Court had no jurisdiction in the matter, so it was moved to federal court, Velie said. "Now, they are claiming that federal court does not have jurisdiction in this matter."
In legal responses filed with the court, tribal attorneys argued that no state or federal court had jurisdiction, because tribal membership was an internal dispute whose remedy lay within established "sovereign tribal forums."
"The Pechanga Band has fought long and hard to preserve its sovereign rights and rights to self-determination," tribal attorney Alex R. Baghdassarian said. "The right to determine its membership is the most basic of those rights."
"Plaintiffs' attempts to get this court to strike at the heart of what it means to be a sovereign tribe -- to determine one's own members -- must be rejected," he said.
"The Pechanga Band's interest and that of the public in upholding and respecting tribal sovereignty -- a key part of the entire heritage of this country and a core component of federal Indian policy -- more than counterbalances any speculative potential harm to plaintiffs."
That argument is backed by some independent legal experts. Carole Goldberg, director of UCLA's joint degree program in law and American Indian studies, said a court determining who is a proper member of the tribe would be "the most profound interference with tribal authority one can imagine."
"This is a matter for a Pechanga court to decide," she said.
Velie disagreed.
"The tribe's committee members are acting outside the law," he said. "The stakes are high."
