During the 1970s American Indians in California and other parts of the United States were at a disadvantage that included unemployment, poverty, deterioration of unsanitary homes and living conditions. To deal with the situation, some tribes included gaming (bingo or poker) in their lifestyle. The tribal government's goal was to make the reservation self-sustaining (Weeber 85). While some tribes have adopted the game, others have not for moral or traditional reasons or because they live in areas far from customers (Canby 332). As a result, their lives continue to lack electricity, clean water, paved roads, and medical facilities (Barker 155). In this article I will show how the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians flourished from poverty because they adopted gaming as a form of economic growth. Then, I will explain the internal issue, known as “opt-out” using sovereignty as a backdrop to show why casino tribes (like any other sovereign government) have the right to deny “membership” to long-time members. Before the Pechanga Band, they began gaming operations on their reservation, other California Indian tribes exercising their sovereignty through poker and card games. The Cabazon Band of Mission Indians operated poker and card games “against” state laws. The state of California insisted that its laws were being defied by the tribe, so it attacked the Cabazon Band by citing Public Law 280 (1953), which had granted the state criminal jurisdiction over Indian reservations. California claimed that the Cabazon group's small-scale gaming operations were criminal and therefore needed to be controlled or banned by the state. As a sovereign people, the Cabazon Band responded by indicating that tribal ordinances upheld by the… medium of paper… the burden of tribal membership may end up being erased (Weeber 91). The membership committee accused Gomez of falsifying federal and local records (Barker 167) then decided that Gomez should be removed from the band's membership roster (Barker 168). After Gomez was expelled from the Pechanga Band, he filed a civil complaint in state court alleging that tribal officials were not following its constitution (Barker 147). Gomez, like other individuals who have been rejected by their tribe, are appealing their case to tribal court. (if available), but they are usually turned away. So, they resort to state and federal courts, but opinions from court cases like Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez make it impossible for the courts to get involved in the matter at hand. State and federal courts typically point to tribal sovereignty as the reason for their non-involvement (Beiser 77).