After telling the Muscogee Nation Supreme Court that implementing its ruling on Freedmen citizenship would require amendments from the Muscogee National Council and a public rulemaking hearing, the Citizenship Board of the Muscogee Nation on Monday requested that the court reject a second motion for contempt filed by Jeff Kennedy and Rhonda Grayson, or to at least hold an evidentiary hearing before deciding the motion.
Kennedy and Grayson are the plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit seeking Muscogee Nation citizenship as descendants of former slaves held by tribal members. On Oct. 14, they asked the Supreme Court to hold both the citizenship board and Principal Chief David Hill in contempt for refusing to comply with the court’s July ruling, which found that the descendants of Muscogee Freedmen were entitled to tribal citizenship within under the Muscogee Nation’s 1866 Treaty with the United States.
The two plaintiffs argued the board had told them in August it would take “four to six weeks” to process their citizenship applications, but then Hill issued an executive order instructing the board not to issue citizenship cards to Muscogee Freedmen until laws and regulations were updated.
“The citizenship board’s continued and unnecessary ‘administrative delays’ caused by Chief Hill’s Aug. 27, 2025, executive order amount to deliberate obfuscation of this court’s order,” Grayson and Kennedy’s attorneys wrote. “An indefinite delay is patently unjustified given this court’s clear ruling as to respondents, nor would a delay of several months (let alone years) be a ‘reasonable amount of time to establish appropriate changes.'”
Telling the court that Muscogee law required the process to take time, the citizenship board’s attorney responded by arguing that justices should deny the contempt motion or hold a hearing on the matter.
“Respondents’ renewed motion should be summarily denied by this court because the citizenship board has not yet had the ability to comply with this court’s order and, therefore, is not in contempt,” attorney Rod Wiemer wrote for the board. “In the alternative, if this court considers contempt proceedings against the appellant, the citizenship board is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to prove that it is not in contempt of this court’s order.”
A previous motion for contempt was filed, and quickly denied, in August. As of the publication of this article, the court has not ruled on the renewed motion.
Board outlines reform process, without timeline
While the Citizenship Board of the Muscogee Nation’s response to the motion for contempt did not clarify when Muscogee Freedmen should expect to be able to receive citizenship cards, it did offer some explanation of how the executive branch intends to implement the court’s July decision.
Justice recall petition stalls
For months, word of a recall petition to remove Muscogee Nation Supreme Court justices for their ruling in the Freedmen case has spread across the Muscogee Reservation.
Tuesday, Muscogee Nation Election Board manager Nelson Harjo Jr. confirmed a petition was formally filed Aug. 11. Petitioners had 60 days to gather and submit signatures equal to 15 percent of registered voters (2,721).
But press secretary Jason Salsman said, “The National Council has not officially received a petition for removal of the justices.”
The motion argued that before the citizenship board could amend its regulations, Title Seven of the Muscogee Nation Code needs to be amended by the Muscogee National Council. Title Seven, which governs “Citizenship/Census,” currently includes several mentions to “by blood” requirements, which were deemed unconstitutional under the court’s July ruling. The board argued that Hill is already working with the council on legislation to comply with the ruling.
“The legislative process to amend Title Seven to provide new evidentiary standards that must be applied when considering applications, including those for Freedmen, are currently underway,” Wiemer wrote. “Chief Hill is actively involved with moving the Title Seven amendments through the necessary steps to get the proposed amendments before the National Council.”
After Title Seven is amended, the board is then required to hold public hearings on their proposed rule changes to implement the future amendments. After the public hearings, the new rules “must be published in the Muscogee Nation News” and filed with National Council Secretary Alicia Stroble and Court Clerk Connie Dearman.
“It is clear from [Title Seven, Section 2-109] that in addition to the National Council passing code amendments in an ordinance signed by the principal chief, the citizenship board must then promulgate rules consistent with the code amendments, and discuss those proposed amendments in at least one public meeting after notice and advertisement posted in the nation’s newspaper,” Wiemer wrote.
Amendments to Title Seven did not appear on any of the Muscogee National Council agendas for October. While Muscogee Freedmen had hoped the July ruling would allow them to vote in the nation’s 2025 elections, no Freedmen descendants will be enrolled prior to the November runoff owing to Hill’s executive order.
It is unclear if the amendment process will be completed and whether Muscogee Freedmen will be allowed to register and vote before what could be a special election for a ballot question in 2026. The Muscogee National Council voted unanimously Oct. 25 to place NCA-25-105 as a constitutional amendment in front of voters that would create term limits for National Council representatives. The question proposes a maximum of three four-year terms, and it is identical to NCA-25-90, which Hill vetoed earlier this month.
A special election will also be required to consider NCA-25-87, which proposes constitutional amendments to change the spelling of “Muscogee” to “Mvskoke” and to remove the word “Creek” altogether.
