Manygoats v. Cameron Trading Post
6 Am. Tribal Law 761 (2006)
Rule of Law:
A court will not vacate its prior, precedential opinions to facilitate a settlement agreement between parties, particularly when those opinions establish significant legal principles, uphold the nation's sovereignty, and vacatur would undermine judicial integrity and the public interest in legal certainty, absent exceptional circumstances.
Facts:
- Ms. Manygoats was employed by Atkinson Trading Company (ATC).
- ATC terminated Ms. Manygoats' employment.
- Ms. Manygoats challenged her termination, alleging a violation of the Navajo Preference in Employment Act (NPEA).
- ATC refused to submit to Navajo Nation jurisdiction over its employment activities.
- ATC filed a complaint in the United States District Court challenging the Navajo Nation's jurisdiction to apply the NPEA.
- The Navajo Nation, the Navajo Nation Labor Commission (NNLC), and Ms. Manygoats appealed the U.S. District Court's summary judgment ruling in ATC's favor to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
- While the appeal was pending before the Ninth Circuit, the parties negotiated a settlement agreement.
- The settlement agreement stipulated that ATC would dismiss its federal court challenge, and the Navajo Nation would not assert jurisdiction over ATC's employment activities in the future, conditional on the Navajo Nation Supreme Court vacating its prior opinions and the NNLC vacating its orders.
Procedural Posture:
- The Navajo Nation Labor Commission (NNLC) issued a decision holding that the Navajo Preference in Employment Act (NPEA) applied to Atkinson Trading Company (ATC).
- ATC appealed the NNLC's decision to the Navajo Nation Supreme Court (first visit).
- The Navajo Nation Supreme Court upheld the NNLC's decision regarding NPEA applicability to ATC and remanded the issue of whether ATC's termination of Ms. Manygoats violated the Act (January 14, 2000).
- The NNLC subsequently modified its original order regarding sanctions against ATC.
- ATC appealed the NNLC's modified order to the Navajo Nation Supreme Court (second visit).
- While the second appeal was pending before the Navajo Nation Supreme Court, ATC filed a complaint with the United States District Court challenging the Navajo Nation's jurisdiction.
- The Navajo Nation Supreme Court issued a second opinion affirming NNLC's jurisdiction and ATC's violation of the NPEA (August 12, 2003).
- The United States District Court entered summary judgment in ATC's favor, ruling that NNLC did not have jurisdiction over ATC to apply the NPEA (March 17, 2004).
- The United States District Court granted ATC's additional request for declaratory and injunctive relief against the NNLC (March 26, 2004).
- The Navajo Nation, the NNLC, and Ms. Manygoats appealed the U.S. District Court's rulings to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Navajo Nation filed a motion with the Navajo Nation Supreme Court asking it to accept the settlement and vacate its previous opinions (April 6, 2006).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Navajo Nation Supreme Court have the authority or a sufficient basis to vacate its prior, precedential opinions regarding Navajo Nation jurisdiction and employment law, simply to facilitate a settlement agreement between the parties in a related federal court action?
Opinions:
Majority - Navajo Nation Supreme Court
No, the Navajo Nation Supreme Court will not vacate its prior, precedential opinions simply to facilitate a settlement agreement between the parties in a related federal court action, because such an action would undermine the integrity of the judiciary, compromise legal certainty, and disregard the public interest in defining and protecting Navajo sovereignty and employment law. The Court emphasized that its prior opinions established binding statements on Navajo law, upholding the Nation's sovereignty and defining the scope of authority for courts and executive officials, as well as responsibilities for employers and employees. Vacatur would significantly impact Navajo Nation law, lessen the reliability of final judgments, and reflect negatively on the judiciary's integrity. The Court noted that its procedural rules for vacatur (like Rule 60(c)) do not directly apply to the Supreme Court for this scenario, and no equivalent appellate rule exists. The parties failed to provide any 'exceptional reason' for such an extraordinary request, relying solely on the settlement agreement's requirement. The Court inferred that the parties sought to avoid 'bad precedent in federal case law' but asserted that once judgments are made, litigation is no longer solely under the parties' control. It found that the parties' desire, especially after advocating for the Nation's sovereignty and the NPEA's importance, was insufficient to reverse binding interpretations of Navajo law that affect the public interest in legal certainty and the protection of Navajo sovereignty. The Court affirmed that the Nation would continue to protect its rightful place in American federalism, regardless of federal court decisions.
Analysis:
This case highlights a critical aspect of judicial authority and the public interest in final judgments and stable legal precedent, particularly for tribal courts asserting sovereignty. By refusing to vacate its opinions, the Navajo Nation Supreme Court reinforced its role as the ultimate interpreter of Navajo law, preventing parties from using settlement agreements in external forums (like federal courts) to retroactively nullify binding tribal law. This decision has significant implications for the finality of judgments, the integrity of judicial pronouncements, and the preservation of tribal sovereignty against external legal pressures, demonstrating that private settlements cannot easily override established public law and judicial authority.
