A Navajo Nation Supreme Court decision explains that it takes more than a disagreement about jurisdiction to stop a case before the facts are developed.
In Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints & LDS Family Services v. Window Rock District Court, No. SC-CV-42-18 (Nav. Sup. Ct. Dec. 2018), the Court refused to permanently halt a civil case in the Window Rock District Court. The decision is a useful reminder that extraordinary court orders are reserved for unusual situations.
What was the case about?
BN, identified by initials in the opinion, sued the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and LDS Family Services in Window Rock District Court. The complaint included claims involving alleged childhood sexual abuse, assault and battery, negligence, negligent supervision or failure to warn, emotional distress, and alleged violations of Navajo common law.
The defendants argued that the Window Rock District Court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction—the legal power to hear the case. After the district court denied their motion to dismiss, the defendants asked the Navajo Nation Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition.
A writ of prohibition is an unusual order from a higher court telling a lower court not to proceed because it lacks legal authority.
Why did the Supreme Court deny the writ?
The Court relied on Yellowhorse, Inc. v. Window Rock District Court, 5 Nav. R. 85, 86 (Nav. Sup. Ct. 1986). Under that decision, a party seeking a writ of prohibition must show that:
The lower court is about to act;
Its action is unauthorized by law; and
The party will suffer harm for which there is no plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy.
For a jurisdiction-based request, the Court explained that the lower court must clearly have no jurisdiction.
The defendants did not meet that high standard. The Court explained that jurisdiction is fact-specific. At the time, the parties had not completed discovery, and the defendants had not yet filed an answer. Based on the complaint, the Court found that at least some allegations could potentially fall within the Window Rock District Court’s authority.
The Court also rejected the argument that the expected cost and length of litigation justified extraordinary relief. Litigation expenses are a normal part of court cases, the Court said, not the unusual harm needed for a writ of prohibition.
What did the Court actually decide?
The Navajo Nation Supreme Court vacated its temporary alternative writ and denied a permanent writ of prohibition.
This was not a final ruling on the underlying allegations. The Court did not decide whether BN’s claims were true, whether the defendants were liable, or whether the Window Rock District Court would ultimately have jurisdiction over every claim after the facts were developed.
The narrower ruling was that, at that stage of the case, the defendants had not shown that the district court clearly lacked jurisdiction or that ordinary legal procedures were inadequate.
Why Navajo Nation sovereignty mattered
The Court emphasized that Navajo courts should not give up their authority without enough facts to make a sound decision. It cited Neptune Leasing Inc. v. Mountain States Petroleum Corp., No. SC-CV-24-10 (Nav. Sup. Ct. May 13, 2010), for the principle that Navajo district courts have a responsibility to protect Navajo Nation sovereignty and not surrender authority unnecessarily.
In practical terms, the Supreme Court concluded that stopping the case before discovery would be premature. The trial court was allowed to continue and develop the factual record.
A separate lesson for attorneys
The opinion also clarified the process for lawyers licensed outside the Navajo Nation who want to appear in a Navajo court for a particular case, often called appearing pro hac vice.
A visiting attorney must comply with Navajo Nation Bar Association requirements, obtain a certificate of compliance, and have sponsoring Navajo Nation Bar Association counsel file a motion seeking the court’s permission. The attorney may not appear until the court grants leave. Simply writing “pro hac vice forthcoming” on a filing is not enough. SC-CV-42-18 at 5–7; Bylaws of the Navajo Nation Bar Association, Inc. § II(A)(4)(e) (effective as amended May 15, 2015).
The takeaway
This decision does not mean that Navajo courts have jurisdiction over every case involving an outside business or organization. It also does not prevent defendants from challenging jurisdiction.
Instead, it shows that when jurisdiction depends on facts that have not yet been developed, the Navajo Nation Supreme Court may allow the trial court to continue rather than stop the case through an extraordinary writ. The ruling also reinforces the Navajo courts’ authority to manage their proceedings and regulate who may appear before them.
This article is for general educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Legal rights and jurisdictional questions depend on the facts of each case and the law that applies.
