ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) – The question of just how much power the Navajo Nation Council has and whether it can be sued as a governmental entity came before the tribe’s high court Wednesday.

The Tribal Council and its speaker appealed a lower court’s decision that reinstated tribal president Joe Shirley Jr. after lawmakers removed him from office last October. The lower court had ruled that the council acted outside its authority in placing Shirley on paid administrative leave.

Joe Lennihan, an attorney for the council, said the lower court improperly expedited Shirley’s case and argued that lawmakers engaged in legislative functions are immune from lawsuits under tribal law.

Shirley’s attorney, former Arizona U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton, countered that the council illegally placed Shirley on paid administrative leave and that tribal government officials are protected from lawsuits only when they act within their scope of authority.

The Supreme Court justices said they would work to render a timely decision and call the parties together to announce it, a deviation from the standard practice of simply issuing a written ruling.

The hearing at the Navajo Nation Museum in Window Rock, Ariz., was less crowded than one held last week in which the justices took up a challenge to a December election that drastically cut the size of the Tribal Council and gave the president line-item veto authority.

The entrance to the museum was lined with posters Wednesday in protest of the council’s decision to fund the election challenge and in support of Shirley.

Council spokesman Joshua Lavar Butler said the sentiment clearly was against the council in both cases and predicted that will carry over in the high court’s rulings. He further suggested that the judicial branch may be in need of reform as well.

“We are a three-branch government, and there is a balance of power established in our government,” he said. “Unfortunately, we have a president who is not willing to work within the confines of that structure.”

Shirley said neither he nor the council can usurp authority over the people and lawmakers have attempted to do just that. He said he had faith in the tribal court that it will do right by the Navajo people.

“At day’s end, the people will come out on top,” he said. “The people will be the victors. I look forward to that.”

Shirley was placed on leave after lawmakers heard reports from investigators that 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 that Navajos overwhelmingly approved in December, a day after he was reinstated.

Wednesday’s hearing marked the fifth issue the tribal Supreme Court has taken up related to Shirley’s government reform effort, which Butler said is not true government reform. Three of those issues have been decided in Shirley’s favor, which has led some council members to claim the justices are biased.

The court has yet to rule on the election challenge.

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 (Lawrence) 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 in court documents.