—Vanessa Edwards, B1Daily

Black Creek Freedmen have fought for recognition as rightful citizens of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. Now, that struggle has entered a new chapter as descendants who already won a landmark tribal court victory are taking their fight to federal court, accusing Principal Chief David Hill and the Muscogee Nation Citizenship Board of refusing to carry out a binding court order.

The lawsuit centers on a simple but profoundly significant issue: citizenship cards.

Plaintiffs Rhonda Grayson and Jeffrey Kennedy argue that despite a 2025 ruling from the Muscogee Nation Supreme Court recognizing their right to tribal citizenship, Nation officials have refused to issue the citizenship cards that would allow them to fully participate as citizens. Without those cards, they remain unable to vote in tribal elections or enjoy the rights and privileges that accompany citizenship.

At the heart of the dispute is the Treaty of 1866, signed after the Civil War. That treaty required the Muscogee Nation to abolish slavery and granted citizenship to formerly enslaved Black people, commonly known as Creek Freedmen, who remained within the Nation. For decades, however, the meaning of that treaty has been contested as tribal citizenship rules evolved.

In 1979, the Muscogee Nation adopted a constitution restricting citizenship to descendants of individuals listed as “Muscogee (Creek) by Blood” on the Dawes Rolls. Because many Black Creek Freedmen ancestors were placed on separate Freedmen rolls by federal officials more than a century ago, thousands of descendants found themselves excluded from citizenship despite the guarantees contained in the 1866 treaty.

The legal landscape shifted dramatically in July 2025 when the Muscogee Nation Supreme Court ruled that descendants of Creek Freedmen are entitled to citizenship if they can trace their ancestry to either the Freedmen Roll or the “by blood” roll, holding that the 1866 treaty remains controlling. The ruling potentially opened the door to citizenship for tens of thousands of descendants nationwide.

According to the new federal complaint, that victory has yet to become reality. The lawsuit alleges that Principal Chief David Hill instructed the Citizenship Board not to issue citizenship cards while tribal leaders consider constitutional changes, effectively preventing the court’s ruling from taking practical effect. The plaintiffs argue that this delay violates both the tribal court’s decision and the treaty obligations that have existed for more than 160 years.

The Muscogee Nation has defended its position by emphasizing tribal sovereignty and stating that questions involving its constitution and citizenship laws should be resolved through its own governmental institutions. Tribal officials have argued that ensuring constitutional compliance is more important than acting quickly and that changes affecting citizenship require careful consideration.

For many Black Creek Freedmen descendants, however, the issue extends beyond legal technicalities. They argue that citizenship represents recognition of family history, identity, and promises made after emancipation. Supporters see the lawsuit as part of a broader national movement to restore the rights of Freedmen descendants across the Five Tribes, following similar legal victories involving the Cherokee and Seminole Nations in recent years.

The outcome of the lawsuit could have consequences far beyond two individual plaintiffs. If the federal court orders compliance with the tribal court ruling, thousands of Black Creek descendants could ultimately gain full recognition as Muscogee citizens, reshaping tribal politics, representation, and the continuing conversation surrounding historical justice, treaty obligations, and tribal sovereignty.

The case underscores a difficult legal and moral question that has persisted since Reconstruction: when treaties promise citizenship to formerly enslaved people and their descendants, how should those promises be honored generations later?

—Vanessa Edwards, B1Daily