ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) – The Navajo Nation Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a case that furthered a rift between the tribe's legislative and executive branches.

The Tribal Council voted in October to place Joe Shirley Jr. on paid administrative leave, pending an investigation into so-far unsubstantiated allegations of ethical, civil or criminal involvement with two companies that operated on the reservation.

Shirley successfully sought an order to block the council resolution from being enforced. A tribal judge ruled in December that lawmakers acted outside the scope of their authority in passing the resolution.

The council and Speaker Lawrence Morgan appealed, arguing the court improperly expedited the case. They assert that under tribal law, they should have had weeks to respond to an intent to sue and even longer to respond to the actual lawsuit before any hearings were held.

The council's attorneys also argued that lawmakers engaged in legislative functions that are immune from lawsuits under the tribe's Sovereign Immunity Act and said tribal courts “may not second-guess the legislative judgments and actions of the Navajo Nation Council.”

Shirley's attorneys contend the council failed to follow proper legislative procedures, denied him of due process rights and the Navajo people of their right to their elected leader, and improperly classified the resolution to place him on leave as an emergency.

The Sovereign Immunity Act only protects tribal government officials acting within their scope of authority because the checks and balances system in a form of government with three branches requires each one “to interfere with acts of the council taken outside the law,” Shirley's attorneys wrote. “In particular, it is incumbent upon the courts to invalidate such acts.”

Shirley was placed on leave after lawmakers heard reports from investigators that there were alleged serious improprieties within the executive branch. The reports have not been made public.

A special prosecutor was appointed to look into the allegations as well as discretionary funding given to council delegates.

Shirley believes the council's action was in retaliation for him spearheading ballot initiatives to reduce the Tribal Council from 88 members to 24 and give the president line-item veto authority. Navajos overwhelmingly approved the initiatives in December, a day after Shirley was reinstated.

The tribal Supreme Court has yet to rule on an appeal that challenges the validity of the election. Wednesday's hearing at the Navajo Nation Museum in Window Rock, Ariz., will mark the fifth issue the high court has taken up related to Shirley's government reformation efforts. Three of those issues have been decided in Shirley's favor, which has led some council members to claim the justices are biased.

Jim Fitting, a former assistant attorney general for the tribe, submitted friend of the court briefs in the two most recent cases. Fitting said council delegates continually have sought loopholes to limit the rights of others and exempt themselves from the laws they enacted.

“The real argument in the appeal of Speaker Morgan and the Navajo Nation Council is that they should be allowed to legislate themselves into a mighty fortress of immunity and strength, where they can manipulate the other branches of government as they see fit,” he wrote.