Navajo Nation Supreme Court Visit and Inaugural Roundtable

Established last year, the Center for Indigenous Law and Justice (CILJ) aims to advance tribal sovereignty, support Native nations, and expand awareness of how tribes engage with the law. Last week, it checked all of those boxes over two enlightening days that featured the Navajo Nation Supreme Court holding a case argument at UC Berkeley Law and CILJ’s inaugural Three Sovereigns, One Conversation roundtable with representatives from tribal, state, and federal governments discussing collaborative approaches to justice and governance. 

The events helped the center improve understanding about the role of Native nations’ sovereignty within the American legal system, foster greater appreciation for tribal rights to self-determination, and support tribes in their pursuit of justice. The gatherings were hosted in partnership with the Navajo Nation Supreme Court and the Judicial Council of California, and co-sponsored by UC Berkeley’s Native American Thriving Initiative.

“It’s an honor for UC Berkeley Law to host these historic events,” said CILJ Executive Director Merri Lopez-Keifer. “There are 574 Native nations in the United States — each has a government-to-government relationship with the federal government — and 109 of them call California home.” 

The Navajo Nation is the largest federally recognized tribe with a three-branch government, including the judicial branch. During the argument of the probate case Dalgai v. Dalgai in UC Berkeley Law’s Booth Auditorium, students saw a tribal court in action and heard insights afterward from its three justices. 

3L and Ho-Chunk Nation member Amber Frank, past co-president of the school’s Native American Law Students Association (NALSA) chapter, enjoyed hearing how the judges bring compassion, cultural and traditional grounding, and storytelling into their courts — and how “law can be relational and healing, not just abstract and adversarial, where the harmed person often remains voiceless.” She said she was inspired by the justices’ transparency about their values and backgrounds, “particularly the idea that law cannot be detached from who we are or where we come from.” 

At Three Sovereigns, One Conversation — which will be an annual roundtable at UC Berkeley Law — tribal, state, and federal judges and members of other key government institutions discussed the power of interjudicial collaboration in advancing the health, welfare, and safety of tribal communities. Lopez-Keifer noted that “integrating tribes as the third sovereign into our student’s academic experience” is part of the center’s mission.

UC Berkeley Law Professor and CILJ Faculty Director Seth Davis, who moderated the roundtable discussion with Lopez-Keifer, said that “by exploring how each sovereign navigates overlapping jurisdictions and approaches tribal sovereignty, the conversation seeks to foster mutual understanding and lasting respect among sovereign justice systems.” 

The day also included cultural sharing with the singing of traditional California Indian songs from Issac Bojorquez (chair of the KaKoon Ta Ruk Band of Ohlone-Costanoan Indians of the Big Sur Rancheria) and the Southern California Intertribal Bird Singers. These songs have been passed down from generation to generation and represent the spiritual teachings of their ancestors — teachings about their creation stories, traditions, and enduring histories. UC Berkeley Chancellor Rich Lyons and UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky also welcomed the Navajo justices to campus and provided gifts in honor of their visit.

Holding court 

During the case argument, Chief Justice Eleanor Shirley, Justice Robert Yazzie, and Justice William Platero listened to arguments about whether Albert Dalgai’s estate should pass to his daughter-in-law or his stepson. A main point of contention: whether Elizabeth Dalgai’s marriage to Albert was legitimate, as she never obtained a written divorce decree after her previous marriage.  

The discussion addressed how Navajo judges factor in tradition and custom along with the written law when assessing cases. Each side’s counsel had 20 minutes to make their points, with the clock stopped during questions from and answers to the justices, and some of that time allowed to be reserved for rebuttal.

“Under our code, one who is married by traditional method is not eligible to remarry without obtaining a divorce decree from the court,” argued appellant counsel Judy Apachee. “Elizabeth admitted she was married, then separated, but with no divorce decree.” 

Noting that Elizabeth only spoke Navajo and followed her tribe’s cultural norms, appellee counsel Robyn L. Interpreter urged the justices to “avoid unfair results on people who were following customs amid fast changes in Navajo law,” adding that the case “represents a clash of cultures, with Anglo law trying to address Navajo people on how they conduct themselves.”

After the session, Shirley explained various customs of the Navajo judicial system, including how judges meet and connect with the litigants and their lawyers after the arguments conclude: “It’s a way of letting the parties know we’ve heard them out, that we take their presentation to heart, and that we’ll consider it with goodwill.  

Platero described how Navajo family and district courts are similar to American state courts, said their procedures largely come from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and encouraged the law students in attendance to consider working for the Navajo Nation. “We have many really old laws that need updating,” he said, noting some open judicial branch staff attorney positions. “Our statutes need a lot of work so we can come up to speed to match more modern systems.”

Frank found it “meaningful to see what justice looks like when it reflects the values and needs of the communities it serves,” citing the values of kinship as foundational, healing and support over retribution, and responsibility over power. “As a 3L, I am so grateful for the opportunity to attend events like this with my NALSA family and the greater Berkeley Law community, to reinforce how I think about my future role as an advocate.”

A less adversarial approach 

The three justices also discussed the tribe’s Peacemaking Program, which strives to bring together parties in conflict to achieve harmony between them. 

“Where there’s a problem, there’s a solution,” Yazzie said, explaining that this concept reflects the Navajo approach to justice and dispute resolution — and contrasts with the “adversarial, win-lose” system used in American courts. Sharing how a federal judge reached out to him years ago with questions about the Peacemaking Program, Yazzie said he enjoys seeing judges increasingly more open to integrating peacemaking concepts into the federal court system.

Arizona’s Coconino County contacted Shirley to discuss incorporating the program, and they are now working together to develop an agreement on what those tasks and responsibilities would entail. Shirley said courts are also starting to recognize the Navajo Nation’s ability to serve Navajos living off-reservation through the program.

Platero echoed the value of judges learning from each other and understanding how different courts approach conflict resolution, saying that process helps the communities they serve. “The more you know, the better,” he said. “The more you know each other, the more you can talk.”

Common values the justices raised included seeing someone as a person before the court rather than merely a defendant, carefully explaining to the parties involved why a court’s decision was made, trying to learn the root cause of a conflict or action rather than focusing solely on the specific rules of law, and striving to gain a full understanding of the client’s life. 

“The most successful way for people to talk isn’t to blame each other,” Yazzie said. “If you want to argue, do it with respect.” 

Pursuing connection and collaboration 

At the roundtable event, California Court of Appeal Justice Alison Tucher explained that tribal court orders are treated in U.S. law as decisions of a separate sovereign — like foreign court orders. While lauding respect for tribal sovereignty, she described the challenge for a county judge or sheriff to figure out whether and how to enforce a tribal court order. 

“If a parent takes children from the reservation into San Francisco and local authorities don’t know how to enforce a tribal order, that poses a problem,” she said.

El Dorado County Superior Court Judge Gary Slossberg recalled how his law school classes could be dehumanizing — “you learn to look at cases in terms of abstract concepts instead of people” — and praised how tribal court is more collaborative: “You’re not just trying to sort out a legal problem, but how to make people’s lives better. That’s sometimes lost in the state court system.” 

Navajo Nation member Sunshine Sykes, the only Native American federal judge in California, described striving to share her perspective to help increase understanding of tribes’ legal issues. Appointed to the Ninth Circuit Education Committee, she said many federal judges “don’t understand what tribal courts do or what challenges they’re facing.” 

CILJ leaders vow to bring similar programs to UC Berkeley Law to expand judicial interaction, legal system understanding, and student engagement. 

“We’re committed to collaborating with tribal governments, students, and the general public,” Lopez-Keifer said. “We’re grateful that this diverse audience had a powerful opportunity to witness tribal law and justice in action, and to learn more about our different legal systems and how they can work together.”  

3L Alex Ward contributed to this report