The Muscogee Nation Supreme Court has ordered the Citizenship Board of the Muscogee Nation and Principal Chief David Hill to submit a second status report to the court outlining their efforts to comply with the court’s order to admit the descendants of Muscogee Freedmen as citizens by April 22. Last summer, the nation’s high court ruled the Treaty of 1866 required the nation to grant citizenship to the descendants of Muscogee Freedmen, but no Freedmen descendant has been issued a citizenship card since the ruling.
The ruling has increased tensions between the nation’s three branches of government, with attorneys representing Freedmen arguing the nation’s executive and legislative branch have largely ignored the court’s July order. While attorneys have raised the specter of judicial noncompliance, the Muscogee Nation Supreme Court justices seem less concerned, at least for now.
“This court understands that, while its July 23, 2025, order and opinion did conclude that ‘any reference to “by blood” citizenship, specifically in the 1979 Muscogee Nation Constitution, but also in the Muscogee Nation Code, or in any associated Mvskoke rules, regulations, policies, or procedures is unlawful and void ab initio,’ it is still necessary for the nation to fill these legislative voids with new law that will comply with the Treaty of 1866,” the justices wrote. “For the time being, the court continues to trust that its co-equal branches of government are applying all-due effort and speed to this important task.”
A lot has happened since the court ruled in favor of Freedmen descendants, including:
- the citizenship board has requested a rehearing and been denied;
- Hill has issued an executive order pausing the processing of Muscogee Freedmen’s citizenship applications;
- attorneys for Freedmen have thrice requested the court to find the nation in contempt for not following the order; and
- one status report has been submitted to justices.
During the same timeframe, the Muscogee Nation held its 2025 elections without the participation of Muscogee Freedmen descendants. The nation is currently scheduled to hold a special election May 30, but a request for an injunction to delay the election owing to alleged Freedmen disenfranchisement is still pending.
Amicus request denied, injunction to halt election in ‘abeyance’
The Muscogee Nation Supreme Court did not grant or deny the motion for an injunction to delay the May 30 election, instead opting to hold the motion in abeyance, essentially pausing the motion to allow the court to issue a ruling on a later date. The court also ordered the citizenship board and Hill to present the court with a second status report on their efforts to implement the decision by April 22, potentially giving justices enough time to pause the election if they are unimpressed with the nation’s efforts.
In addition to the motions from parties to the case, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed a joint motion requesting to submit an amicus brief to the court supporting the third motion for contempt and the request for an election injunction.
“This court must not allow its orders to be disregarded and the rights of Creek Freedmen to be violated,” attorneys for the two organizations wrote. “This court should require the immediate processing of all pending citizenship applications for Creek Freedmen and impose any additional relief necessary to ensure they can vote and have their votes counted in the May election and any other elections going forward.”
Chief Justice Andrew Adams III denied the amicus motion as untimely.
“The movants assert that their motion is timely, as it was filed ‘eight days from the filing of the respondents,'” Adams wrote. “However, the ‘initial review decision accepting the appeal’ triggering the start of a movant’s 15 day deadline to submit a motion to intervene was filed on Oct. 2, 2023, thus making the movants’ motion untimely.”
Muscogee Nation Press Secretary Jason Salsman declined to comment on the order for a second status report or the court holding the injunction request in abeyance.
