## Facts

- The Navajo Tribal Council adopted Resolution CAP-32-77 (Apr. 5, 1977) appropriating $70,000 in tribal funds to pay Chairman Peter MacDonald’s private legal expenses in non-tribal matters.
- A prior budget resolution (CF-18-77) and 2 N.T.C. § 365 required Budget and Finance Committee consideration of budgetary measures before Council enactment.
- CAP-32-77 was adopted through interim budget changes without prior Budget and Finance Committee review.
- Tribal members sued in the Shiprock District Court (May 3, 1977) seeking a TRO and permanent injunction to prevent expenditure of the appropriated funds and to void the resolution.
- The district court issued an ex parte TRO restraining expenditure of the $70,000 and did not require a security bond.
- Defendants moved to change venue to Window Rock; the district court denied the motion.
- On May 18, 1977, the district court enjoined defendants from expending the funds and declared the appropriation unlawful.
- Defendants appealed to the Navajo Nation Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether Navajo courts may review and invalidate Tribal Council actions for noncompliance with the Navajo Tribal Code and established Council procedures, notwithstanding the absence of a written Navajo constitution.
2. Whether a challenge to a Council budgetary resolution is barred as a nonjusticiable political question.
3. Whether Resolution CAP-32-77 was void for failure to obtain prior Budget and Finance Committee consideration required by 2 N.T.C. § 365 and CF-18-77.
4. Whether appropriating tribal funds to pay an official’s private legal expenses constitutes an unlawful use of public funds for a private purpose.
5. Whether the expenditure was additionally unlawful due to asserted procedural defects, including lack of placement on a required meeting agenda and lack of an approved attorney contract under 25 U.S.C. § 81.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held the dispute was justiciable and not a political question.
- The Court of Appeals held Navajo courts have authority to review and set aside Tribal Council actions that conflict with the Tribal Code or binding procedural requirements, even absent a written constitution.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s injunction prohibiting expenditure of the $70,000.
- The Court of Appeals declared Resolution CAP-32-77 illegal and void for bypassing required budget procedures and for authorizing tribal expenditures for a private purpose (the Chairman’s personal legal expenses).
- The Court of Appeals left undisturbed the district court’s venue ruling and the issuance of injunctive relief without a security bond.

## Legal Principles

- A legislative body that enacts procedural and substantive limits in positive law is bound by those limits until it amends or repeals them.
- Navajo courts may enforce Navajo Tribal Code requirements against Tribal Council action; judicial review extends to legal compliance, not policy preference.
- “Political question” limits do not bar adjudication where the claim turns on applying identifiable legal standards in the Tribal Code to Council action.
- Tribal public funds may not be expended for purely private purposes absent lawful authorization and compliance with required procedures.
- Budgetary appropriations adopted in violation of mandatory committee-review requirements under governing law are subject to being declared void and enjoined.

## Conclusion

The Navajo Nation Court of Appeals affirmed an injunction voiding a Tribal Council appropriation for the Chairman’s private legal expenses, holding that courts may review Council actions for compliance with the Navajo Tribal Code and that the challenged expenditure was unlawful because it bypassed required budget procedures and used public funds for a private purpose.


Halona v. MacDonald, 1 Nav. R. 189 (Navajo Nation Ct. App. 1978)