TULSA, Okla. — The citizenship trial for Rhonda Grayson and Jeff Kennedy, two Creek Freedman descendants, kicked off Tuesday morning. Both sides rested their cases on Wednesday and finished closing arguments.
Following closing arguments the judge decided "the case deserves more attention" and said she will make a ruling as quickly as possible.
The Muscogee Creek Nation released a statement after closing arguments ended:
“At the conclusion of two days of oral arguments and witness testimony before the Court, the plaintiffs have failed to produce a single shred of compelling evidence to show that the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Citizenship Board acted unlawfully. The Board properly applied the standards of citizenship to the applications submitted by the plaintiffs. Non-Creek individuals do not qualify for citizenship in the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. We believe the law is clear and look forward to Judge Mouser’s decision.”
The pair were denied citizenship into the tribe based on the tribe’s constitution of 1979, which requires citizenship by blood.
Attorneys for Kennedy and Grayson say the Treaty of 1866 supersedes the Constitution. Experts say Article 2 of the Treaty allows citizenship to the Creek Freedman and their descendants. The Freedman were both African Americans enslaved by the tribe and any free African Creek Indians at the time.
The trial continued Wednesday. Nathan Wilson, the Muscogee Creek Nation citizenship board director, testified the board follows the MCN Constitution when reviewing citizenship cases.
The Constitution says in part, “Persons eligible for citizenship in the Muscogee Creek Nation shall consist of Muscogee Creek Indians by blood whose names appear on the final rolls… and persons who are lineal descendants of those Muscogee Creek Indians by blood whose names appear on the final rolls.”
Wilson testified Grayson was not admitted citizenship because she did not meet the ‘by blood’ requirement laid out in the constitution. Wilson testified he did reach out to the MCN Attorney General’s office to ask about the Treaty of 1866 which Grayson cited in her application but was told to follow the constitution.
Leann Nix, a member of the MCN Citizenship Board, testified the board follows the constitution not the treaty when reviewing citizenship applications.
In witness testimony Tuesday, expert witness Professor Carla Pratt tested that the Treaty of 1866 is the “Supreme law of the land” and where there’s conflict with the MCN constitution about citizenship, the Treaty should supersede the Constitution.
On Tuesday, 3 witnesses testified, including the two plaintiffs Rhonda Grayson and Jeff Kennedy. Grayson and Kennedy testified to the process of applying for citizenship, their denials, and appeals. The plaintiff's attorney called Professor Carla Pratt. She’s a law professor with expertise in constitutional and federal Indian law.
She created a report for the trial that states in the citizenship conflict between the Treaty of 1866 and the 1979 Muscogee Creek Nation Constitution; the U.S. Constitution recognizes the Treaty as the supreme law of the land.
Attorneys for the Citizenship Board say the board’s actions followed the constitution, which is the law.
In a statement the Muscogee Creek Nation said,
“The right to request a court review of administrative decisions is an example of the transparency and accountability of our agencies. The straightforward question before the Muscogee (Creek) Nation District Court today was whether the Citizenship Board followed tribal law when considering the plaintiffs’ citizenship applications. We believe the Board acted lawfully. The federally approved Muscogee (Creek) Nation Constitution makes no provision for extending citizenship to any non-Creek individual.”
The trial is expected to last through Thursday.
Stay in touch with us anytime, anywhere --
- Download our free app for Apple, Android and Kindle devices.
- Sign up for daily newsletters emailed to you
- Like us on Facebook
- Follow us on Instagram
- Follow us on Twitter
