Background & Facts
Joann Milanovich, a tribal member and former employee of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians' tribal government, was terminated from her position. She filed suit in California Superior Court alleging wrongful termination, claiming violations of California labor law and constitutional due process.
The Agua Caliente Band moved to dismiss, asserting tribal sovereign immunity. Milanovich argued that California's P.L. 280 jurisdiction extended to employment disputes between a tribe and its members, and that the tribe had implicitly waived its immunity by operating within California.
The California Supreme Court unanimously ruled for the tribe.
The Court's Holding
The California Supreme Court unanimously held that tribal sovereign immunity barred the state court action. P.L. 280 did not waive or abrogate tribal sovereign immunity, and operating within California did not constitute an implied waiver. The tribe's internal employment decisions — particularly regarding tribal government positions — were protected by sovereign immunity.
Key Holding:
Tribal sovereign immunity bars California state courts from adjudicating employment disputes between tribes and their employees — even tribal member employees, even in a P.L. 280 state. P.L. 280 granted California jurisdiction over certain civil causes of action, but it did not abrogate tribal sovereign immunity. Immunity must be waived expressly; operating within a state is not an implied waiver.
Key Language
"Tribal sovereign immunity protects Indian tribes from suit in state or federal court. This immunity applies regardless of the nature of the relief sought and whether the tribe's activities are governmental or commercial in nature."
"Public Law 280 did not abrogate tribal sovereign immunity. While it granted California jurisdiction over certain civil causes of action arising in Indian country, it did not purport to subject Indian tribes themselves to suit."
"A tribe's decision to hire and fire employees for its governmental operations is quintessentially an exercise of self-governance."
How This Case Supports ATN in California
Agua Caliente is binding California law directly supporting ATN's sovereign immunity. It's the California Supreme Court — not a federal court — affirming that tribal sovereign immunity is alive and well in California, even under P.L. 280.
- 1. P.L. 280 does NOT waive immunity. This is the California Supreme Court saying, in binding precedent for all California courts, that P.L. 280 did not abrogate tribal sovereign immunity. ATN cannot be sued in California state court without express waiver.
- 2. Employment disputes are protected. ATN's hiring, firing, and management of tribal government employees — including cannabis regulatory staff — is protected by sovereign immunity. Disgruntled employees cannot sue ATN in state court.
- 3. Commercial activity included. The court noted immunity applies "whether the tribe's activities are governmental or commercial in nature" — consistent with Kiowa and Bay Mills. ATN's cannabis licensing operations are covered.
- 4. California-specific precedent. Unlike federal cases that apply nationally, this is California state law — meaning it directly binds Mendocino County Superior Court, California appellate courts, and all California state judges considering tribal immunity questions.
- 5. Unanimous decision. 7-0. No dissent. The California Supreme Court was entirely united on this point.
Related Cases
- Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community (2014) — SCOTUS reaffirmation of tribal sovereign immunity for commercial activity
- Kiowa Tribe v. Manufacturing Technologies (1998) — Immunity covers commercial activity on or off reservation
- Bryan v. Itasca County (1976) — P.L. 280 grants no regulatory authority over tribes
- California v. Cabazon Band (1987) — California-specific: civil/regulatory laws don't apply to tribes under P.L. 280
- Hopland Band v. California (9th Cir. 2022) — Recent 9th Circuit affirmation of tribal authority in California
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (1978) — Tribal sovereign immunity over internal affairs