## Facts

- On January 28, 2008, the Village of Bacavi submitted a certified question of Hopi tribal law to the Appellate Court of the Hopi Tribe under Hopi Tribal Ordinance 21 § 1.2.8(a).
- The matter was presented as a certified-question proceeding rather than an adversarial appeal, and the court issued an “Interim Answer” dated April 4, 2008 (later published at Am. Tribal Law 80 (2010)).
- The certified question asked: “Do Villages, regardless of their form of government, have the authority to remove or decertify their duly-certified Tribal Council Representatives?”
- The court first addressed whether a Hopi village could invoke the certified-question procedure under Ordinance 21, which authorizes the Hopi Tribal Court of Appeals to answer Hopi-law questions “certified from any tribal, federal, or state court or from any tribal, federal, or state administrative agency.”
- On the merits, the court examined the Hopi Constitution’s provisions addressing (1) village certification of representatives (Hopi Const. art. IV, § 4) and (2) removal of representatives by the Tribal Council, including automatic removal for specified convictions and removal for “serious neglect of duty” by a two-thirds vote after an opportunity to be heard (Hopi Const. art. V, §§ 1–2).
- The court contrasted the Constitution’s express enumeration of Tribal Council removal authority with the Constitution’s silence on any village power to remove a duly certified representative.

## Issues

1. Whether the Village of Bacavi had standing under Hopi Tribal Ordinance 21 § 1.2.8(a) to certify a question of Hopi tribal law to the Hopi Court of Appeals.
2. Whether, under the Hopi Constitution, Hopi villages have authority to remove or decertify their duly certified Tribal Council representatives.
3. Whether the village’s power to certify (or withhold certification of) a representative includes any post-certification authority to remove that representative from office.

## Decision

- The court held that the Village of Bacavi had standing to file a certified question under Ordinance 21 § 1.2.8(a), concluding that villages fall within the scope of “tribal courts” or “tribal administrative agencies” for purposes of the ordinance.
- The court answered the certified question in the negative on the merits: villages do not have authority to remove or decertify duly certified Tribal Council representatives.
- The court held that the Hopi Constitution allocates removal power exclusively to the Tribal Council, because Article V expressly sets out grounds and procedures for Tribal Council removal while the Constitution does not grant villages a removal power.
- The court distinguished village authority to withhold certification before a representative is seated (Hopi Const. art. IV, § 4) from removal authority after certification, holding that a village may withhold certification but may not remove a representative once certified.

## Legal Principles

- Under Hopi Tribal Ordinance 21 § 1.2.8(a), the Hopi Court of Appeals may answer certified questions of Hopi tribal law, and a Hopi village may qualify to certify a question where the ordinance permits certification from tribal courts or tribal administrative agencies.
- When a constitution expressly enumerates removal grounds and procedures in one governmental body, and is silent as to removal authority in another, the enumerated authority is treated as exclusive within the constitutional structure.
- Under the Hopi Constitution, villages have a gatekeeping role through certification of representatives (Hopi Const. art. IV, § 4), including withholding certification, but that role does not extend to post-certification removal.
- The Hopi Constitution authorizes removal of Tribal Council representatives by the Tribal Council on specified grounds and through specified procedures, including automatic removal for certain convictions (art. V, § 1) and removal for serious neglect of duty by a two-thirds vote after an opportunity to be heard (art. V, § 2).

## Conclusion

In this certified-question proceeding brought by the Village of Bacavi under Ordinance 21, the Hopi Court of Appeals held that the village had standing to certify a question of Hopi law, and it answered that villages—regardless of form of government—lack authority to remove or decertify duly certified Tribal Council representatives; the Hopi Constitution places removal authority in the Tribal Council, while villages retain only the pre-seating power to certify or withhold certification.


In the Matter of the Certified Question of Law Re: Village Authority to Remove Tribal Council Representatives, No. 2008-AP-0001, Am. Tribal Law 80 (2010)