Resources to Assess ONGD Proposed Constitution

This page was last updated on April 9, 2026

Shirley v. Morgan refers to THREE opinions the Navajo Nation Supreme Court (NNSC) issued between 2008-2010 which serve as the bedrock for Navajo government reform. They are informally referred to as the “Shirley v. Morgan trilogy,” which collectively affirm that the Government Development Project was established as an organ of the People, intended to provide a systemic solution for the People’s desire for a direct voice in their government. The three opinions are set forth below. 

 In re Two Initiative Petitions filed by President Joe Shirley (July 18, 2008)

This opinion concerns initiative petitions filed by President Joe Shirley to reduce the size of the Navajo Nation Council from 88 to 24. The Speaker at the time was Lawrence P. Morgan. The Office of Hearings and Appeals filed a certified question to the Navajo Nation Supreme Court (NNSC) concerning whether the Council may independently amend 2 N.N.C. § 102(A) concerning the number of delegates who serve on the Council. Stating that “the ultimate power to govern the Nation always remains with the People,” the Court recognized the People’s inherent right to initiate change, while also noting the specific language of the provision which addressed Council size. 

Shirley v. Morgan (June 2, 2010) (Shirley I)

This case arose after President Joe Shirley was placed on administrative leave by the Navajo Nation Council using emergency legislation based on his role in business dealings never made public nor shared with Shirley. The Council Speaker at the time was Lawrence P. Morgan. President Joe Shirley petitioned the Navajo Nation Supreme Court (NNSC) to enjoin the Council from placing him on administrative leave. Stating that this was a “critical time of great disharmony between the branches,” the NNSC did issue the requested injunction. Nothing that the branches had been in disagreement over the source of governmental authority for two years, the Court emphasized that “k’e is the high standard which the People hold our leadership in their enactments and exercise of powers during the period they hold Office, in service of the Navajo People . . . and in dealings with each other.” Stating that the Council may not “re-define the Fundamental Law of the Navajo Nation to include man-made law, the Court invalidated Resolution CJA-08-10 which had attempted to establish the Council’s own enactments as Fundamental Law. The Court stated: “Dine bi beenahaz ‘aanii as acknowledged by the Council teaches that our Dine leaders are to adhere to the values and principles of Dine bi beenahaz ‘aanii. 1 N.N.C. §203 (2002). Dine bi beenahaz ‘aanii are the very foundational laws of Navajo culture. They are not man-made law, and may not be “enacted” by individuals or entities or the Navajo Nation Council, they may simply be acknowledged by our man-made laws. Diné bi beenahaz’áanii are immutable.” Cautioning against “the terrible history of colonialism and its terrible impact on all Indian Nations,” the Court stated: “As a tribal Nation, we have asserted our inherent sovereignty—our historical sovereignty, our language, culture, our value system, and our legal heritage based on unwritten Fundamental Laws that form the very foundation of who we are as Dine.” The Court added: “We have said before that participatory democracy does not come from the non-Navajo nor does it come from the Council. It comes from a deeper, more profound system of governance: the Navajo People’s traditional communal governance, rooted in the Dine Life Way.” The Court acknowledged and held that “the Whereas and Resolved Clauses of CD-68-89 (Title II Amendments) operate today as a solemn promise by the Council to the People, intended to bind the hands of future Councils. They embody the commitment of the Council to a structure they hoped and believed would serve the People effectively until the People themselves might find a path to a better way.” 

Shirley v. Morgan (July 16, 2010) (Shirley II)

Affirming the power of the people to choose their government, the NNSC restored the Commission on Navajo Govt Development (“Commission”) and ordered that it be restored according to the original terms in the Title 2 Amendments of 1989 “to finally fulfill their purpose of enabling the People to participate in the development of our Navajo Nation.” The Court noted: “[The Commission and Office] shall be funded at their original funding levels or at sufficient levels to fulfill their duties and responsibilities, whichever is greater. The duties shall be performed within a reasonable time frame to be set by the Commission. Recommendations by the People may be via chapter resolutions, referendum, convention of representatives of the People, or other publicly accepted mechanism to be determined by the Commission after feedback from the People.”