In a previous post U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Rejects... we wrote that it was rare to have the dissenting opinion published. Well, we have that for you here. We have bolded many of the pertinent portions where the dissenting judge points out the obvious to those justices that apparently took the "blind" portion of the justice is blind too seriously. Take a look.
Money Quote1: "Here, appellants are not directly challenging the merits of their disenrollment, i.e., whether they are direct descendants from the original Pechanga Temecula people," Wilkens wrote. "Rather, appellants challenge under the (Indian Civil Rights Act) the manner of their disenrollment. The former would be barred by tribal sovereign immunity, whereas the latter is not."
Money Quote2: The combination of the current and potential restrictions placed upon Appellants and the loss of their life-long Pechanga citizenship constitutes a severe restraint on their liberty
.The majority analyzes each of these grounds separately, instead of collectively
, and determines that none amounts to a detention.
I respectfully disagree with this approach
Dissenting Opinion Jeffredo v Macarro