| Navajo Supreme Court hears case at WCL BY SALLY ACHARYA
| The event was an opportunity, said WCL dean Claudio Grossman, for students to gain firsthand experience of the tribal courts which, he noted, are not only important in their own right but have served as models in dealing with indigenous groups across the Americas. |
Long before the Navajo nation became a part of the United States, it had its own ways of administering justice. Instead of lawyers and judges, there was a concept of “nalyeeh,” which meant that disputes should be resolved to the satisfaction of the victims. Now there are trial and appellate courts on the vast Navajo nation, where lawyers who have passed the Navajo bar argue in front of tribal judges in a wide range of civil and criminal cases. Navajo Supreme Court Chief Justice Herb Yazzie and his colleagues on the bench came to Washington College of Law (WCL) recently to introduce law students to the tribal legal system and hear oral arguments in a case now under review. Tribal courts aren’t part of the state or federal legal system, but they do reflect its norms. And the effort to balance Navajo tradition with a justice system adopted from another culture sometimes raises questions that can send cases all the way to the Navajo Supreme Court. The case heard at WCL, Joe v. Black, began with a night in June 2002 when a car on tribal land struck a horse, the driver died, and the injured car passenger sued for damages. She filed multiple lawsuits—against the driver’s insurance company, the state of Utah, the Navajo Nation, and the horse’s owner—and lost all cases except the one against the horse’s owner. He did not, however, have enough money to pay the damages. A victim can’t sue repeatedly for damages under U.S. and state law. But under the concept of “nalyeeh,” a victim should be left with no hard feelings. So after a lower court dismissed the case, the Navajo Supreme Court took it up in an effort to balance the two legal approaches. Tribal courts don’t have jurisdiction over every crime or legal dispute on the reservation, but they do hear a wide range of civil cases, as well as criminal cases where the penalty doesn’t exceed a year in jail. The Navajo court is the largest and busiest of the many tribal court systems in the United States. “We operate a system very much like the one you’re studying,” Yazzie told the students. “It’s based on the adversarial system of American jurisprudence, which is something that was imposed historically. “At the same time, we have our own system of justice. The modern word used to describe that system is peacemaking. Our job is to decide, when there are conflicts, which law—which system —should be used.” After a period in which the Navajo simply adopted U.S. institutions, there is now a conscious effort to apply traditional customs in court cases, though “we’re still learning,” said Justice Lorene Ferguson. “These (customs) are what we live by on a daily basis. We have a duty to maintain that. I brought my granddaughter because I think I have that duty to maintain it,” Ferguson said with a nod to a small girl sketching in the front row. “It is our responsibility,” Yazzie said, “to live a life pursuant to the laws and duties that were placed there for us ... There is a real sense of obligation that whatever we do, we must not do something that contradicts or does something in contravention to traditional laws. Change is inevitable, but it is our responsibility to see that all change in society be done in an orderly fashion, and without violence.” The three justices will consider the arguments and hand down their verdict in several months. |
