## Facts

- An 1882 Executive Order created a reservation in northeastern Arizona that became the subject of competing Hopi and Navajo claims.
- The Hopi Indian Tribe sued the Navajo Indian Tribe and tribal officials to obtain a judicial determination of the tribes’ rights and interests in part of that reservation.
- In 1962, the district court entered a declaratory judgment determining that the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Tribe held “undivided and equal interests” in the disputed portion of the reservation and were entitled to joint use and benefit.
- Years later, Hopi representatives alleged Navajo authorities were effectively denying Hopis meaningful joint use and benefit of the land.
- In 1970, the Hopi filed a post-judgment petition seeking an “order of compliance” and/or a “writ of assistance” to enforce the 1962 declaratory judgment against Navajo officials, including Raymond Nakai (then Chairman of the Navajo Tribal Council).
- The district court denied the requested enforcement relief.
- The Hopi appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

## Issues

1. Did the district court err in denying the Hopi Tribe’s post-judgment request for an order of compliance or writ of assistance to enforce the 1962 declaratory judgment recognizing undivided and equal interests and joint use?
2. Was the district court’s denial of the requested enforcement relief sufficiently final to permit appellate review (given arguments that only part of the requested relief was denied)?

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held it had jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of the Hopi petition because, in substance, the district court denied the requested enforcement relief.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court.
- The court reasoned that the 1962 judgment declared co-ownership and joint-use rights but did not provide for partition, boundary-setting, or a detailed regime for day-to-day management and allocation of use.
- In light of prior related proceedings (including rulings treated as controlling in the ongoing dispute), the federal court could not grant enforcement relief that would effectively require partition-like relief or continuing judicial administration of reservation use.
- Because the Hopi’s requested compliance order/writ would have required the court to do more than place the Hopi in possession under the existing declaration—by forcing detailed allocation and supervision of land use—the district court properly refused the requested relief.

## Legal Principles

- A writ of assistance or similar enforcement order may be used to implement an existing judgment, but it cannot be used as a vehicle to create new substantive obligations or an ongoing management framework not contained in the prior decree.
- A declaratory judgment establishing “undivided and equal interests” confirms co-ownership and joint-use rights, but further coercive relief that requires line-drawing, allocation, or administrative control may exceed what the judgment authorizes.
- In long-running litigation, prior controlling determinations in related phases of the same dispute may limit later remedial options; a court may treat those determinations as binding when assessing requested enforcement measures.
- Appellate jurisdiction may exist where a district court’s order, viewed in practical effect, denies the enforcement relief sought, even if parties dispute whether every requested label of relief (injunction vs. writ) was expressly addressed.

## Conclusion

Hamilton v. Nakai affirmed the denial of the Hopi Tribe’s 1970 petition for an order of compliance or writ of assistance because the requested enforcement would have required judicially imposed allocation and supervision of use beyond the 1962 declaratory judgment recognizing the Hopi and Navajo Tribes’ undivided and equal interests and joint-use rights.


Hamilton v. Nakai, 453 F.2d 152 (1971)