Law360 (November 6, 2026, 9:29 PM EST) -- Two descendants of Black people once enslaved by an Indigenous tribe implored an Oklahoma federal court to keep alive their challenge to an effort to deny them citizenship in the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, saying the tribe's principal chief has for more than a year defied a tribal Supreme Court ruling that gave them the right and is wrongly trying to use an immunity claim to avoid a federal treaty that guarantees them citizenship.

Muscogee Creek Black Freedmen members Rhonda K. Grayson and Jeffrey D. Kennedy said the Treaty of 1866, which the Muscogee Nation signed with the federal government after the American Civil War, makes them Muscogee citizens as "a matter of federal law." The only thing standing between them and citizenship, they argued, is the refusal of principal chief David Hill to put his name on their citizenship cards, which tribal law requires.

"So, the laws and constitution of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation currently require Chief Hill to issue and sign plaintiffs' citizenship cards," Grayson and Kennedy wrote in their response to Hill's motion to dismiss, filed Tuesday in the Western District of Oklahoma. "Chief Hill's refusal to do so is an ongoing violation of the federal law that guarantees plaintiffs all rights and privileges of Muscogee (Creek) citizens."

Grayson and Kennedy sued Hill, the tribe's citizenship board and its individual board members in July, which marked the one-year anniversary of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Supreme Court's unanimous decision in their favor by remanding their case to the tribal citizenship board and ordering it to apply the Treaty of 1866 to its requirements for citizenship.

In their response brief, Grayson and Kennedy argued that Article II of the treaty guarantees them and their fellow descendants citizenship within the Oklahoma tribe.

Article II gave certain rights and privileges to people who were enslaved by the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Muscogee (Creek) and Seminole nations, often referred to in federal statutes as the "five civilized tribes," according to the U.S. Department of the Interior. The five nations were required to abolish slavery on their lands and give full rights to those they had enslaved and to their descendants.

Hill moved to have the suit dismissed in October, arguing that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that granting citizenship to Muscogee Creek Black Freedmen members can be achieved only through a constitutional amendment and "appropriate legislation." He also asserted that, as principal chief, he is a tribal official for only the executive branch of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation with no independent power to enact legislation for the tribe.

"Chief Hill's arguments to avoid his legal obligations are wrong as a matter of law," Grayson and Kennedy wrote.

The tribe's Supreme Court has already settled the matter by declaring that Muscogee Creek Black Freedmen members are entitled to citizenship under the Treaty of 1866, Grayson and Kennedy argued, noting that "any contrary provision of the nation's constitution and laws — namely, any reference to citizenship 'by blood'" — is both unlawful and null from the start.

"The court may search in vain for Chief Hill's citations to authority or specific changes that would be required — because there are none," Grayson and Kennedy wrote.

Under the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Constitution, which vests the nation's judicial power in its Supreme Court, the high court declares what the law is and its rulings are final, Grayson and Kennedy wrote.

"Plaintiffs' requested relief — an injunction against particular individuals for narrow, specified relief — fits squarely within the traditional equitable jurisdiction of the federal courts," the filing said. "And, contrary to Chief Hill's cursory assertion in a throwaway footnote ... plaintiffs' allegations establish their right to citizenship under the Treaty of 1866 as a matter of federal law."

Hill also argued in his motion that the Muscogee (Creek) Nation is an indispensable party to the litigation that can't be joined without its consent due to tribal immunity, which extends to tribal officials like him. 

Grayson and Kennedy argued otherwise, citing the 10th Circuit's 2014 decision in Thlopthlocco Tribal Town v. Stidham, which adopted the reasoning of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a D.C. Circuit judge at the time, in the court's 2012 ruling in Vann v. United States Department of the Interior, which allowed the Cherokee Freedmen to sue the Cherokee Nation's principal chief over their citizenship rights under the Treaty of 1866. Both courts also held that when a plaintiff sues a tribal officer for prospective relief, the tribe itself does not need to be a party to the lawsuit, according to the filing.

Grayson and Kennedy said, "Chief Hill's political (or personal) disagreement with embracing plaintiffs and other 'persons of African descent' as full citizens of the nation cannot overcome his obligations under federal law to issue and sign plaintiffs' citizenship cards."

In 2022, Grayson and Kennedy sued the Muscogee (Creek) Nation's citizenship board in tribal court, following a decadelong fight that prompted the Cherokee Nation to enact a new constitution offering citizenship to the descendants of Black people it had once held as slaves.

A month after the high court's July 2025 decision, Hill issued an executive order that paused the issuance of any enrollment cards to Muscogee Creek Freedmen, claiming that he was upholding the Muscogee Constitution until the requirements of the ruling could be reviewed. 

In April 2026, the Muscogee (Creek) National Council adopted a resolution that called for a vote of no confidence in the five justices who handed down the 2025 decision in the Freedmen citizenship dispute.

According to the legislation, the justices violated their oath of office by independently amending the 1979 Creek Constitution by striking the words "by blood" without a vote of the people.

The Creek citizenship board, in an October 2025 response to Grayson and Kennedy's second motion for contempt before the high court, argued that it has a constitutional duty to certify citizenship, and that it must do so within the framework of tribal code, as well as its own rules and regulations.

Counsel for Grayson and Kennedy did not respond to a request for comment on Friday. Counsel for Hill did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday.

Grayson and Kennedy are represented by Damario Solomon-Simmons of Solomon Simmons Law PLLC, by Jana L. Knott of Bass Law, and by Lauren E. Briggerman and William Lloyd Hupp of Squire Patton Boggs LLP.

Hill is represented by Joseph Williams of O. Joseph Williams Law Office PLLC.

The tribal citizenship board and its members are represented by Rod W. Wiemer of Rod Wiemer Attorney at Law.

The case is Grayson et al. v. Hill et al., case number 5:26-cv-01874, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

--Additional reporting by Crystal Owens. Editing by Karin Roberts.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.