A respectful crowd of American Indian tribal members, lawyers, students and onlookers met in Room 175 of the Knight Law Center on Thursday night to observe the Navajo Supreme Court in action.
Chief Justice Robert Yazzie opened the meeting by announcing the Navajo Nation Council’s recent adoption of the Laws of the Diné.
“On Nov. 11, the Navajo Nation Council took a giant step, and adopted a law that is in blunt assertion of traditional Navajo rights and liberties,” Yazzie said. “The fundamental laws of the Diné; the Diné means people.”
Yazzie said the laws will reinforce traditional Navajo beliefs and thinking. The laws will be applied in tribal courts and will act as a statement to the world.
“It is a sign to the Navajos and to the world that the Navajos are Navajos,” he said. “And they intend to remain Navajos despite all the challenges from the outside world. The fundamental laws of the Diné say who we are.”
The Navajo Supreme Court is the highest court of law in the Navajo Nation. Justices of the court have responsibilities almost identical to the federal justices; however, their interpretation of the law may differ.
The court came to the University to hear oral arguments regarding Nelson v. Pfizer. Sixteen members of the Navajo Nation and the Zuni Pueblo are seeking retribution against the pharmaceutical giant in the case. The plaintiffs say they sustained injuries from the prescription drug Rezulin, which is produced by Pfizer Inc.
Rezulin was used to treat people suffering from Type II diabetes. The drug was withdrawn from the market in March 2000 after it was linked with liver damage and liver failure in some people who had taken the medication.
The case came to the court after it was dismissed from a tribal district court on a question concerning jurisdiction.
Because the case involves off-reservation companies, lawyers representing Pfizer at the Supreme Court hearing argued that it did not fall within tribal jurisdiction. According to Pfizer lawyers, there was not a specific relationship between the Navajo Nation and the drug company.
“We believe the appellants have confused subject matter and personal jurisdiction,” Attorney Andrew Federhar said. “There is no case in the United States of America where a nonmember of a native American tribe has been subjected to the jurisdiction of a tribal court for their off-reservation activities.”
Federhar said Pfizer never distributed or marketed Rezulin on Navajo land, and therefore the company could not be held responsible for the people’s use of the drug.
Randolph Barnhouse, the attorney for the plaintiffs, told the court Pfizer had withheld information about the risks of Rezulin after it was distributed to the public. According to Barnhouse, Pfizer had made direct efforts to promote Rezulin on tribal land and therefore should be held accountable for the health problems of the tribal members.
The case was heard by Acting Chief Justice Lorene Ferguson, Associate Justice Marcella King-Ben and Associate Justice by designation Leroy Bedonie. A decision on the case will be announced at a later date.