Navajo Nation v. State
2012 UT 23
| Utah | 2012Background
- Navajo Nation objected to L.O.'s adoption on ICWA placement; DCFS denied transfer to tribal jurisdiction.
- Nation renewed motion to transfer jurisdiction under 25 U.S.C. § 1911 during a second adoption petition; juvenile court denied.
- Nation sought interlocutory and direct appeals; court of appeals dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
- Consents filed: Navajo Nation consent to adoption and stipulations stating issues remain; Guardian ad Litem filed mootness suggestion.
- Supreme Court granted certiorari to address jurisdiction and briefing; after cert, Nation’s adoption consent mooted the contested issues.
- Court concludes the consent renders the issues moot and declines to apply the public-interest mootness exception, dismissing the petition for certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the issues moot due to adoption consent? | Nation contends issues survive despite consent. | State/GA Litem argue issues mootness based on consent. | Issues are moot; consent renders relief impossible. |
| Does the public-interest exception rescue moot issues? | Public interest favors review to clarify ICWA procedures. | Public-interest exception not satisfied; mootness remains. | Public-interest exception not applicable; issues remain moot. |
| Should the court address appellate jurisdiction and briefing despite mootness? | Questions about jurisdiction/briefing analysis could guide policy. | No relief available; mootness controls. | No consideration; issues dismissed as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Halloway, 732 P.2d 962 (Utah 1986) (jurisdictional ICWA issues not mooted by timing of appeal)
- Navajo Nation v. State (In re Adoption of A.B.), 245 P.3d 711 (Utah 2010) (live jurisdictional dispute under ICWA in A.B. context)
- Guardian ad Litem v. State (State ex rel. C.D.), 245 P.3d 724 (Utah 2010) (mootness considerations in guardian context)
- Richards v. Baum, 914 P.2d 719 (Utah 1996) (mootness and advisory opinions policy)
- Shipman v. Evans, 100 P.3d 1151 (Utah 2004) (mootness and public policy considerations)