(OKLAHOMA, USA) The Muscogee Creek Freedmen are asking the Supreme Court to enforce a landmark July 2025 Supreme Court ruling that recognized their right to tribal citizenship, after Principal Chief David Hill ordered a halt to new citizenship cards for Freedmen descendants. The executive order, issued weeks after the decision, has left applications in limbo and heightened tensions over how the ruling should be put into effect within the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
At the center of the dispute is the tribe’s July 2025 Supreme Court ruling that said the Treaty of 1866 guarantees citizenship to descendants of people formerly enslaved by the tribe, often referred to as Muscogee Creek Freedmen. The court struck down the tribe’s “by blood” requirement, which had blocked many Freedmen descendants from full membership and benefits for decades. The judgment was celebrated by Freedmen families as a long-awaited recognition of treaty rights.
Weeks later, Chief Hill issued an executive order pausing the issuance of new citizenship cards to Freedmen descendants. He argued the court overreached and that changes to the tribe’s constitution must come through legislative action and a vote of the citizens. Under the order, the citizenship board can accept applications but cannot process them or issue IDs until the National Council reviews and updates the governing code.
While the tribe says it is moving carefully to align policy with the treaty and the ruling, Freedmen applicants describe the pause as a delay tactic that blocks practical access to rights the court already confirmed.
Two lead plaintiffs, Rhonda Grayson and Jeff Kennedy, whose applications were denied in 2019, returned to court this fall. They asked the Supreme Court to enforce its order and sought contempt charges against the citizenship board for what they called “willful delay.” In October 2025, the court denied the contempt request but reaffirmed the core ruling that the Treaty of 1866 entitles Freedmen descendants to citizenship. The decision kept pressure on tribal officials to present code changes and set a process for issuing citizenship cards.
Legal backdrop and current status
The conflict traces to the tribe’s 1979 constitution, which removed automatic citizenship for Freedmen descendants despite the 1866 treaty language. The Supreme Court ruling in July upended that framework by striking the “by blood” provision as inconsistent with the treaty.
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the ruling is viewed as a major milestone for treaty enforcement within tribal law, with implications for how citizenship is defined in other Oklahoma tribal nations that signed similar 1866 agreements.
Chief Hill’s office says the government is drafting code amendments and reviewing policies to ensure long-term compliance with both the Treaty of 1866 and internal procedures. Officials describe a careful and deliberate process aimed at avoiding new legal conflicts and making sure the citizenship board can apply the rules consistently. No public timeline has been given.
Current practical effects:
– The citizenship board may accept applications from Muscogee Creek Freedmen descendants.
– The board is barred from processing those applications or issuing citizenship cards until the National Council completes its review and any constitutional amendments are enacted.
– Freedmen applicants say the delay prevents them from accessing voting rights, office-holding, and full tribal benefits.
Human impact and broader implications
For many Muscogee Creek Freedmen families, the ruling was more than a legal win; it was a chance to reclaim identity, restore lineal ties, and be seen as full citizens. Applicants describe gathering records, tracing ancestry, and preparing for the moment they could finally receive their cards. The halted process—applications accepted but not processed—has turned anticipation into frustration.
Some elders fear they may not live to vote or receive services long promised under the treaty. Advocates warn the pause has ripple effects for families with children:
– Parents cannot fully enroll kids in certain programs.
– College students may miss scholarship deadlines.
– Veterans may face barriers proving eligibility for tribal support.
The Muscogee case raises broader questions about the balance between tribal sovereignty and treaty obligations, and about how courts, executives, and legislatures within a tribal government work through conflict. The July decision was hailed as a clear reading of the Treaty of 1866, yet execution now sits with political branches that must translate a court opinion into working policy.
Legal advocates for the Freedmen plaintiffs signal they will keep pressing for enforcement and could go to federal court if tribal remedies are exhausted. Such a move would likely focus on treaty rights and whether the pause undermines an enforceable court order. For tribal officials, the challenge is to produce code changes that can stand up to legal scrutiny while keeping trust with Muscogee citizens who expect a voice in constitutional matters.
The court’s denial of contempt in October did not change the core mandate but left room for the government to complete its review. If progress stalls, more filings are expected. If amendments pass and the board receives formal instructions, the first new Muscogee Creek Freedmen citizenship cards could follow soon after.
Key points — what is clear today
- The Supreme Court ruling stands: Freedmen descendants are entitled to citizenship under the Treaty of 1866.
- The executive order remains in effect: no new citizenship cards to Freedmen descendants are being issued.
- Application status: the citizenship board may accept applications but cannot process them until lawmakers act.
- National Council review: ongoing, with no set timeline.
Where to learn more about enrollment processes
For readers seeking a primer on how enrollment works in tribal governments generally, the Bureau of Indian Affairs provides public guidance. See the exact federal resource here: https://www.bia.gov/faqs/faq-how-do-i-apply-enrollment-indian-tribe for federal context on how tribes manage membership based on their own laws and traditions. While each tribe sets its own rules, including the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, that resource explains typical documentation and process steps.
Possible outcomes and stakes
- If code amendments arrive soon and the board begins issuing IDs, Freedmen descendants could participate in upcoming elections and access full tribal programs.
- If the delay continues into the next cycle, a class of people recognized by court order as citizens may remain unable to exercise core rights.
- VisaVerge.com reports that similar disputes in other tribal nations often hinge on both legal clarity and political will, with implementation timelines varying widely.
Tribal officials stress that policy changes must be durable, pointing to the need for:
– Clear definitions,
– Record standards,
– Robust appeals procedures.
Freedmen applicants counter that measured does not have to mean slow and urge immediate issuance of citizenship cards while the council fine-tunes code details.
As both sides wait on the National Council, the legal clock keeps ticking. If progress stalls, expect more filings. If amendments pass and formal instructions arrive, issuance of Muscogee Creek Freedmen citizenship cards could restore rights and trust for families who have pushed for this moment for years.
This Article in a Nutshell
The Muscogee (Creek) Nation Supreme Court’s July 2025 ruling affirmed that the Treaty of 1866 guarantees citizenship to Muscogee Creek Freedmen descendants, invalidating the tribe’s “by blood” membership requirement. After the ruling, Principal Chief David Hill issued an executive order halting the issuance of new Freedmen citizenship cards, allowing applications to be accepted but not processed while the National Council reviews code and potential constitutional changes. Plaintiffs whose applications were denied in 2019 sought enforcement and contempt findings; the court denied contempt in October 2025 but reaffirmed the core ruling. Implementation now hinges on legislative action, with potential impacts on voting rights, benefits access, and enrollment timelines. Legal advocates may pursue further enforcement, including federal litigation, if internal remedies stall.
