Law360 (October 15, 2026, 4:45 PM EDT) -- Muscogee (Creek) Nation Principal Chief David Hill is asking an Oklahoma federal court to dismiss a challenge that looks to block the tribe from denying citizenship to descendants of people once enslaved by the Indigenous nation, arguing that it can be achieved only through a constitutional amendment and legislative process.

Muscogee Creek Black Freedmen members Rhonda Grayson and Jefferey Kennedy can't force the Oklahoma court to grant them citizenship, Hill says, because only the tribe, its citizenship board and individual board members who can vote on a constitutional amendment can implement that change.

In addition, the principal chief argues in a Tuesday motion, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation is an indispensable party to the litigation that can't be joined without its consent due to tribal immunity.

"Plaintiffs claim federal jurisdiction exists because this action arises under the Treaty of 1866, but nothing in that treaty provides a clear and express abrogation by Congress of the nation's sovereign immunity from suit. Further, plaintiffs fail to identify any other express congressional abrogation for this action to proceed," Hill's motion says.

Grayson and Kennedy, members of the Muscogee Creek Black Freedmen sued Hill, the tribe's citizenship board and its individual members in July on the one-year anniversary of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Supreme Court's unanimous decision that remanded their case to the tribal citizenship board and ordered it to apply the Treaty of 1866 to its requirements for citizenship.

They argue that Article II of the Treaty of 1866 between the federal government and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation guarantees them and their fellow descendants citizenship within the Oklahoma tribe.

Section 2 of the 1866 Treaty gave certain rights and privileges to people who were enslaved by the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Muscogee (Creek) and Seminole nations, according to the U.S. Department of the Interior. The nations, often referenced in federal statutes as the Five Civilized Tribes, were required to abolish slavery on their lands and give full rights to those they had enslaved and to their descendants.

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2020 decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma — in which the justices held the reservation boundaries of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation are intact and remain a part of Indian Country under federal law — serves as a guiding precedent for the Treaty of 1866, the lawsuit says.

In addition, Grayson and Kennedy argue that no provisions in the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act mention the Freedmen. The law, which in 1936 allowed the tribe to reorganize governments after land allotments, only concerns the reorganization of federally recognized Oklahoma tribes and the development and approval of new tribal constitutions, according to the suit.

Hill argues that previous litigation involving similar issues has resulted in cases against tribes being dismissed due to tribal sovereign immunity, including a Tenth Circuit 2003 decision in Davis v. United States. In that case, the circuit court affirmed dismissal by Freedmen members when the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma could not be joined due to sovereign immunity, he says.

"Based on the significant infringement on the nation's sovereignty that is involved in this case, the nation is a necessary party under FRCP Rule 19(a). However, the nation cannot be joined due to its sovereign immunity from suit, so the complaint must be dismissed under Rule 19 due to lack of jurisdiction for want of a necessary and indispensable party," the motion says.

Hill argues that the Muscogee Black Freedmen believe that their interpretation of the Treaty of 1866 and the tribal high court order support their position without going through the constitutional amendment process.

However, he says, "there can be no doubt" that the tribe would be a required party under Rule 19.

Allowing Grayson and Kennedy to obtain citizenship, Hill argues, would violate the Muscogee (Creek) Nation's constitution and jeopardize the tribe's ability to function as a government and to exercise sovereign authority over its territory and citizens in a manner consistent with its constitution.

"Plaintiffs' claims are a direct attack on the right of the nation, like all other Indian tribes, 'to make their own laws and be ruled by them,'" Hill argues, citing the 1959 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Williams v. Lee.

In addition, he says, 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.

"The nation's sovereign immunity protections extend to tribal officials like Chief Hill," Tuesday's motion says. "Even though the complaint attempts to circumvent sovereign immunity by applying Ex Parte Young, that exception does not apply here due to the 'special sovereign interests' of the nation that would be impacted by a judgment for plaintiffs."

Grayson and Kennedy, Hill argues, don't cite any binding authority that gives the federal district court jurisdiction to effectively "domesticate" the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Supreme Court's order and enforce it, especially when the order involves a significant internal intratribal issue.

In a Thursday statement to Law360, Damario Solomon-Simmons of Solomon Simmons Law PLLC, an attorney representing the pair, said that Hill's motion to dismiss is another attempt to avoid complying with the tribe's own high court and federal law.

"In a unanimous decision, the nation's Supreme Court affirmed that the citizenship board acted contrary to law in denying Rhonda Grayson and Jeff Kennedy citizenship based on their Black Creek Freedmen designation and directed the board to apply Article II of the Treaty of 1866 and issue their citizenship cards. The issues of law in this case are settled; this is a matter of enforcement. Rhonda and Jeff and similarly situated individuals are Muscogee citizens, and Chief Hill's continued obstruction of their treaty-guaranteed rights is racist, unlawful and an assault on the rule of law," Solomon-Simmons stated.

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

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

In April 2026, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Council adopted a resolution that called for a vote of no confidence in Justices Andrew Adams, Richard Lerblance, Montie Deer, Kathleen Supernaw and George Thompson for handing 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 "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.

"All we seek is an order requiring the chief to do what he already has been ordered to do: issue our clients citizenship cards consistent with the court's order and a federal treaty. It's long overdue that our clients be able to exercise rights and privileges of tribal citizenship to which they are entitled," Lauren Briggerman, an attorney with Squire Patton Boggs who is also representing Grayson and Kennedy told Law360 in a Thursday statement.

Counsel for Hill did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday.

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

The tribal citizenship board and its members are represented by Rod W Wiemer

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

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.

--Editing by Amy French.

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