Taylor v. Bradley

Summary

The Navajo Nation Supreme Court considers whether the Tuba City District Court has civil jurisdiction over an action arising in the Moencopi Administrative Unit, an area within the exterior boundaries of the Navajo Reservation but subject to competing Navajo and Hopi interests. The court holds that Congress had not created a temporary exclusive Hopi reservation there or divested Navajo courts of jurisdiction. It denies the writ of prohibition and recognizes concurrent Navajo and Hopi jurisdiction over the area as a matter of comity, limited to judicial jurisdiction.

Holdings

1. The court could decide the jurisdictional issue through a writ of prohibition because the conflicting tribal-jurisdiction question was unique, involved extraordinary circumstances, and presented an issue of first impression in the Navajo courts.
2. Under 7 N.T.C. §§ 253(2) and 254, Navajo Nation district courts have civil jurisdiction over persons who cause an action to occur within the territorial jurisdiction of the Navajo Nation, including land within the exterior boundaries of the Navajo Reservation.
3. Neither the 1934 Act, the 1974 Settlement Act, nor the 1980 Amendments Act created a temporary exclusive Hopi reservation in the Moencopi Administrative Unit or divested Navajo Nation courts of civil adjudicatory jurisdiction there.
4. The Secretary of the Interior could not create a Hopi reservation or grant exclusive judicial jurisdiction over the Moencopi Administrative Unit absent specific congressional authorization.
5. As a matter of comity and mutual respect, the Navajo and Hopi Tribes had concurrent jurisdiction over the Moencopi Administrative Unit for the time being, and the Tuba City District Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate Sloan v. Taylor.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Navajo Nation Supreme Court should decide the jurisdictional issue by writ of prohibition despite the availability of an appeal.
2. Whether the Tuba City District Court had civil adjudicatory jurisdiction over a conversion action arising within the Moencopi Administrative Unit.
3. Whether federal statutes, the Bennett Freeze, executive action, or the Hopi Tribe's claimed equitable interest created a temporary exclusive Hopi reservation or otherwise divested Navajo Nation courts of civil jurisdiction over the Moencopi Administrative Unit.
4. Whether the Navajo and Hopi Tribes had concurrent civil jurisdiction over the Moencopi Administrative Unit as a matter of comity and mutual respect.

Disposition

writ_denied