Muscogee Nation court rules descendants of enslaved people are entitled to citizenship
The court found that the tribal nation's citizenship board violated an 1866 treaty when it denied the applications of Rhonda Grayson and Jeffrey Kennedy in 2019 because they could not identify a lineal descendant of the tribe.
'Are we, as a Nation, bound to treaty promises made so many years ago? Today, we answer in the affirmative, because this is what Mvskoke law demands,' the court wrote in its opinion.
The Muscogee Nation is one of five tribes in Oklahoma that once practiced slavery, and in that 1866 treaty with the U.S. government, the tribe both abolished it and granted citizenship to the formerly enslaved. But in 1979, the tribal nation adopted a constitution that restricted membership to the descendants of people listed as 'Muscogee (Creek) Indians by blood' on the Dawes Rolls, a census of members of the five tribes created around 1900.
When the Dawes Rolls were created, people were listed on two separate rolls: those who were Muscogee and those who were identified by the U.S. government as Freedmen. In its ruling Wednesday, the court remanded the matter back to the Muscogee Nation's citizenship board and directed it to apply the Treaty of 1866 to Grayson and Kennedy's applications, as well as any future applicants who can trace an ancestor to either roll.
The decision could create a path to tribal citizenship for thousands of new members who are not Muscogee by blood.
The ruling is a long-awaited affirmation of their ancestors and their rightful place in the Muscogee Nation, said Rhonda Grayson.
'While this victory honors our past, it also offers a meaningful opportunity for healing and reconciliation. It's time now to come together, rebuild trust, and move forward as one united Nation, ensuring future generations never again face exclusion or erasure," she said in a statement to The Associated Press.
'When I heard the ruling, I felt generations of my family exhale at once," Kennedy added in a statement. 'Our ancestors signed that treaty in good faith, and today the Court finally honored their word.'
The court also found that any reference of 'by blood' in the Muscogee Nation's constitution is unlawful, which could mean the tribe will have to overhaul parts of the governing document. One provision of the constitution requires that citizens be at least one quarter Muscogee 'by blood' to run for office.
'We are currently reviewing the order to understand its basis as well as its implications for our processes,' Muscogee Nation Chief David Hill said in a statement. 'It may be necessary to ask for a reconsideration of this order to receive clarity so that we can ensure that we move forward in a legal, constitutional manner.'
Successful legal cases were brought against two of the five tribes, the Seminole Nation and the Cherokee Nation, which have since granted citizenship to Freedmen descendants. But how that citizenship is implemented could come down to politics, said Jonathon Velie, an attorney who worked on behalf of Freedmen in both cases.
The roughly 2,500 Freedmen citizens in the Seminole Nation are not allowed to run for higher office and do not have access to certain resources, like tribal housing and education assistance. The 17,000 Freedmen citizens in the Cherokee Nation, however, have been embraced by the last two administrations and are given the full benefits of tribal members.
When it comes to the U.S. Department of the Interior, which oversees many of the resources owed to tribes through treaty rights, the Freedmen citizens in both tribes are the same, said Velie — their tribes just honor their citizenship differently.
'I hope the (Muscogee) Creek Nation welcomes them back in, because what they won today wasn't the U.S. Government or the U.S. courts telling them, they told themselves in their own judicial system," Velie said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
3 minutes ago
- The Guardian
US court allows Trump officials to end protected status for 60,000 migrants
A federal appeals court on Wednesday sided with the Trump administration and halted for now a lower court's order that had kept in place temporary protections for 60,000 migrants from Central America and Nepal. This means that the Republican administration can move toward removing an estimated 7,000 people from Nepal whose temporary protected status designations expired on 5 August. The TPS designations and legal status of 51,000 Hondurans and 3,000 Nicaraguans are set to expire 8 September, at which point they will become eligible for removal. The 9th US circuit court of appeals in San Francisco granted the emergency stay pending an appeal as immigrants rights advocates allege that the administration acted unlawfully in ending temporary protected status designations for people from Honduras, Nicaragua and Nepal. 'The district court's order granting plaintiffs' motion to postpone, entered July 31, 2025, is stayed pending further order of this court,' wrote the judges, who are appointees of Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Donald Trump. Temporary protected status is a designation that can be granted by the homeland security secretary, preventing migrants from being deported and allowing them to work. The Trump administration has aggressively sought to remove the protection, thus making more people eligible for removal. It's part of a wider effort by the administration to carry out mass deportations of immigrants. Secretary Kristi Noem can extend temporary protected status to immigrants in the US if conditions in their homelands are deemed unsafe for return due to a natural disaster, political instability or other dangerous conditions. Immigrant rights advocates say TPS holders from Nepal have lived in the US for more than a decade while people from Honduras and Nicaragua have lived in the country for 26 years, after Hurricane Mitch in 1998 devastated both countries. 'The Trump administration is systematically de-documenting immigrants who have lived lawfully in this country for decades, raising US-citizen children, starting businesses, and contributing to their communities,' said Jessica Bansal, attorney at the National Day Laborer Organization, in a statement. Noem ended the programs after determining that conditions no longer warranted protections. In a sharply written 31 July order, US district judge Trina L Thompson in San Francisco kept the protections in place while the case proceeds. The next hearing is 18 November. She said the administration ended the migrant status protections without an 'objective review of the country conditions', such as political violence in Honduras and the impact of recent hurricanes and storms in Nicaragua. In response, Tricia McLaughlin, the assistant secretary at the DHS, said: 'TPS was never meant to be a de facto asylum system, yet that is how previous administrations have used it for decades.' The Trump administration has already terminated TPS designations for about 350,000 Venezuelans, 500,000 Haitians, more than 160,000 Ukrainians and thousands of people from Afghanistan and Cameroon. Some have pending lawsuits in federal courts. Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that Noem's decisions are unlawful because they were predetermined by Trump's campaign promises and motivated by racial animus. But Drew Ensign, a US deputy assistant attorney general, said at a hearing Tuesday that the government suffers an ongoing irreparable harm from its 'inability to carry out the programs that it has determined are warranted.' In May, the US supreme court allowed the Trump administration to end TPS designations for Venezuelans. The justices provided no rationale, which is common in emergency appeals, and did not rule on the underlying claims.
Reuters
3 minutes ago
- Reuters
US appeals court sides with medical marijuana users in challenge to gun ban
Aug 20 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court ruled on Wednesday that a federal law that bars illegal drug users from owning guns potentially could be deemed unconstitutional when it is applied to medical marijuana users. A three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, opens new tab that a group of Florida residents who use medical marijuana had plausibly alleged that the law as applied to them violates their right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment. It relied on the 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen holding that gun restrictions must be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." The Florida plaintiffs, who originally sued alongside then-Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, a Democrat, before she left office, argued that keeping guns from users of medical marijuana in states that have authorized its use is not consistent with that historical tradition. Florida legalized medical marijuana in 2016. While the drug remains illegal at the federal level, the plaintiffs noted the U.S. Department of Justice is barred under the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment from using funds to interfere with state medical marijuana programs, including to prosecute individuals. The U.S. Department of Justice argued that barring marijuana users from having guns was nonetheless consistent with a long-standing tradition of disarming convicted felons or dangerous individuals. A lower-court judge agreed. But U.S. Circuit Judge Elizabeth Branch, writing for the panel, said at most, the plaintiffs were committing a federal misdemeanor by using marijuana, had not had been convicted of a crime and not been shown at this stage in the case to pose such a danger as a result of their drug use they should be disarmed. "Accordingly, the Federal Government has failed, at the motion to dismiss stage, to establish that disarming Appellants is consistent with this Nation's history and tradition of firearm regulation," she wrote. Branch said her opinion was consistent with a decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year holding that a pot-smoking gun owner in Texas could not be constitutionally prosecuted for violating the federal ban. Her opinion was joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Robert Luck, a fellow appointee of Republican President Donald Trump, and Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Gerald Tjoflat, an appointee of Republican President Gerald Ford. William Hall, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at Jones Walker, in a statement welcomed the ruling, saying it vindicated their position. "As we have argued from the beginning of this case, the 2nd Amendment does not permit the federal government to categorically deem all medical marijuana patients to be too dangerous to exercise their core constitutional rights," he said. The Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment. The case is Florida Commissioner of Agriculture v. Attorney General of the United States, 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 22-13893. For the plaintiffs: William Hall of Jones Walker For the federal government: Steven Hazel of the Justice Department Read more: Marijuana user cannot be banned from gun ownership, US court rules Medical marijuana users challenge federal gun ban at US appeals court
Reuters
3 minutes ago
- Reuters
US judge rejects Trump administration challenge to Illinois E-Verify law
Aug 20 (Reuters) - A federal judge in Chicago has dismissed a bid by the administration of Republican President Donald Trump to bar Illinois from restricting employers' use of a federal program that electronically verifies eligibility to work in the United States. U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman on Tuesday said, opens new tab an Illinois law imposing a series of requirements on employers who use E-Verify falls within the state's power to regulate employment and does not interfere with the federal government's enforcement of immigration laws. Trump, a Republican, has made immigration enforcement a centerpiece of his second term. His administration has stepped up arrests of immigrants, cracked down on unlawful border crossings and stripped legal status from hundreds of thousands of migrants. Coleman denied the administration's motion for a preliminary injunction blocking the law, which took effect in January, and granted a motion by Illinois to dismiss the case. "The federal government's broad interpretation of its power to regulate matters of immigration would swallow the historic powers of the states over employment-related issues," wrote Coleman, an appointee of President Barack Obama, a Democrat. The U.S. Department of Justice and the Illinois Attorney General's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. E-Verify was established in 1996 to help companies avoid hiring people who are in the United States illegally and lack authorization to work. The program compares work eligibility forms filled out by workers, known as I-9s, with records maintained by the federal government. E-Verify is voluntary on the federal level, but 10 states require all or most employers to use it and about a dozen others mandate it for government contractors. California and Illinois are the only states that restrict the use of E-Verify. The Illinois law, called the Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act, bans employers from using the program to check the immigration status of existing employees and requires them to post notices about E-Verify in the workplace. It also requires employers to notify workers when federal authorities are conducting an audit of their immigration status and allow them to address any discrepancies in their paperwork. The Trump administration in its lawsuit claimed that because the law discourages employers from using E-Verify, it disrupts federal immigration enforcement and is preempted by federal law. Coleman on Tuesday said that argument was "broad to the point of absurdity." If the administration were correct, it would mean that states also could not mandate the use of E-Verify and that various other state employment laws that have been upheld by courts would be invalid, she said. The case is United States v. Illinois, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, No. 1:25-cv-04811. For the United States: Elianis Perez of the U.S. Department of Justice For Illinois: Darren Kinkead of the Illinois Attorney General's Office Read more: Trump's immigration enforcement record so far, by the numbers
