Global Courant
A judge for the Muscogee (Creek) Nation in Oklahoma ruled in favor of citizenship for two descendants of Black slaves once owned by tribal members, potentially paving the way for hundreds of other descendants known as freedmen.
District Judge Denette Mouser, based in the tribe’s headquarters in Okmulgee, ruled late Wednesday in favor of two Black Muscogee Nation freedmen, Rhonda Grayson and Jeff Kennedy, who had sued the tribe’s citizenship board for denying their applications.
Mouser reversed the board’s decision and ordered it to reconsider the applications in accordance with the tribe’s Treaty of 1866, which provides that descendants of those listed on the Creek Freedmen Roll are eligible for tribal citizenship.
NATIVE AMERICAN WOMEN REFUSE TO LIVE IN FEAR AMID SOARING CRIME, ARM THEMSELVES AND TAKE GUN CLASSES
Freedman citizenship has been a difficult issue for tribes as the U.S. reckons with its history of racism. The Cherokee Nation has granted full citizenship to its freedmen, while other tribes, like the Muscogee Nation, have argued that sovereignty allows tribes to make their own decisions about who qualifies for citizenship.
Muscogee Nation Attorney General Geri Wisner said in a statement that the tribe plans to immediately appeal the ruling to the Muscogee Nation’s Supreme Court.
“We respect the authority of our court but strongly disagree with Judge Mouser’s deeply flawed reasoning in this matter,” Wisner said. “The MCN Constitution, which we are duty-bound to follow, makes no provisions for citizenship for non-Creek individuals. We look forward to addressing this matter before our Nation’s highest court.”
Tribal officials declined to comment further.
Plaintiff Rhonda Grayson speaks outside the Muscogee Nation court building, Okmulgee, Oklahoma, Thursday, Dec. 1, 2022. (Mike Simons/Tulsa World via AP, File)
The Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee (Creek) and Seminole nations were referred to historically as the Five Civilized Tribes, or Five Tribes, by European settlers because they often assimilated into the settlers’ culture, adopting their style of dress and religion, and even owning slaves. Each tribe also has a unique history with freedmen, whose rights were ultimately spelled out in separate treaties with the U.S.
Mouser pointed out in her decision that slavery within the tribe did not always look like slavery in the South and that slaves were often adopted into the owner’s clan, where they participated in cultural ceremonies and spoke the tribal language.
“The families later known as Creek Freedmen likewise walked the Trail of Tears alongside the tribal clans and fought to protect the new homeland upon arrival in Indian Territory,” Mouser wrote. “During that time, the Freedmen families played significant roles in tribal government including as tribal town leaders in the House of Kings and House of Warriors.”
NATIVE AMERICAN GROUP HOPES TAYLOR SWIFT’S INFLUENCE COULD END TOMAHAWK CHOP DURING CHIEFS GAMES
A telephone message left Thursday with plaintiff’s attorney Damario Solomon-Simmons was not immediately returned, but he said in a statement that the case has special meaning to him because one of his own ancestors was listed on the original Creek Freedmen Roll.
“For me, this journey transcended the boundaries of mere legal proceedings,” he said. “It became a poignant quest to reclaim the honor and dignity that anti-Black racism had wrongfully snatched from us.”
Solomon-Simmons has argued that the Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s constitution, which was adopted in 1979 and included a “by-blood” citizenship requirement, is in clear conflict with its Treaty of 1866 with the U.S. government, a point raised by Mouser in her order. She noted the tribe has relied on portions of the treaty as evidence of the tribe’s intact reservation, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in its historic McGirt ruling in 2020 on tribal sovereignty.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“The Nation has urged in McGirt — and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed — that the treaty is in fact intact and binding upon both the Nation and the United States, having never been abrogated in full or in part by Congress,” she wrote. “To now assert that Article II of the treaty does not apply to the Nation would be disingenuous.”
