OKLAHOMA CITY — Creek Freedmen descendants Rhonda Grayson and Jeffrey Kennedy filed a federal lawsuit Thursday against Muscogee (Creek) Nation Principal Chief David Hill, the Nation’s Citizenship Board and its individual members.
The lawsuit was filed exactly one year after the Muscogee Nation Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the board acted “contrary to law” by denying Grayson and Kennedy citizenship solely because they could not trace an ancestor to the Creek By-Blood Dawes Roll.
The court directed the board to recognize applicants who can establish lineal descent from either the Creek By-Blood Roll or the Creek Freedmen Roll.
Grayson and Kennedy announced the federal action during a July 23 press conference in Oklahoma City. Their attorneys allege Hill and the Citizenship Board have defied the tribal court’s final judgment by refusing to issue the pair citizenship cards.
“Nearly 100,000 Black Creeks across the country were ready to receive their citizenship cards,” lead attorney Damario Solomon-Simmons said.
The decision could create a path to citizenship for Black Creek descendants nationwide.
Why Creek Freedmen descendants are back in court
Solomon-Simmons, president and chief legal counsel of Justice for Greenwood, said he began fighting for Creek Freedmen citizenship in 2004. He now serves as lead counsel for Grayson and Kennedy.
The dispute traces back to the Treaty of 1866. Signed after the Civil War, the treaty abolished slavery within the Creek Nation and provided that Creek Freedmen and their descendants would “have and enjoy all the rights and privileges of native citizens.”
For more than a century, Creeks of African descent remained citizens of the Nation.
That changed after the Muscogee Nation adopted a new constitution in 1979. It restricted citizenship to descendants of people listed as “Creek by blood” on the Dawes Rolls, excluding descendants whose ancestors appeared only on the Creek Freedmen Roll.
Solomon-Simmons said he first challenged that exclusion through the Creek Nation’s judicial system. After an unsuccessful tribal case, he and other Creek Freedmen watched the Cherokee Freedmen win a similar citizenship dispute in federal court in 2017.
Creek Freedmen plaintiffs filed a federal lawsuit in Washington, D.C., the following year. A federal judge dismissed that case without prejudice in 2019, ruling that the plaintiffs first had to exhaust their remedies within the Muscogee Nation.
Grayson and Kennedy subsequently applied for citizenship through the Nation’s established process. The Citizenship Board denied their applications and administrative appeals because neither applicant traced an ancestor to the Creek By-Blood Roll.
They filed a lawsuit in Muscogee Nation District Court in March 2020.
Following a two-day trial, District Judge Denette Mouser ruled in their favor in September 2023. She determined that the Citizenship Board’s denials were contrary to law and unsupported by the evidence.
The Citizenship Board appealed.
Tribal Supreme Court declared the “by blood” rule unlawful
On July 23, 2025, the Muscogee Nation Supreme Court affirmed Mouser’s ruling in a unanimous 5-0 decision. Two justices recused themselves and did not participate.
The court held that the Treaty of 1866 remains binding and requires Creek Freedmen and their descendants to receive the same rights and privileges as other Creek citizens.
It also declared references to “by blood” citizenship in the Nation’s 1979 Constitution “unlawful and void ab initio,” meaning legally invalid from the beginning.
The court then directed the Citizenship Board to issue citizenship to Grayson and Kennedy and apply the treaty to qualified future applicants tracing ancestry to either Dawes Roll.
The court later denied the Citizenship Board’s petition for rehearing.
“We’ve already won,” Kennedy said during Thursday’s press conference. “We’ve done everything we need to do.”
Chief David Hill’s executive order halted citizenship cards
Despite the ruling, Chief David Hill issued Executive Order 25-05 in August 2025. The order allowed the Citizenship Board to continue receiving Freedmen applications but directed it not to issue citizenship cards or other proof of citizenship until tribal laws and policies were updated.
Hill argued that the tribal Supreme Court exceeded its authority by effectively altering the Nation’s constitution. He said constitutional amendments must be approved by the National Council and Muscogee voters.
Attorneys for Grayson and Kennedy reject that position. They argue that no constitutional amendment is required because the tribal Supreme Court already declared the “by blood” restrictions legally void.
Solomon-Simmons compared Hill’s actions to Alabama Gov. George Wallace’s attempt to block Black students from entering the University of Alabama in 1963.
“Chief Hill stood in the way,” Solomon-Simmons said. “Like Governor George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door at the University of Alabama with his message of ‘segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever,’ Chief Hill issued an illegal executive order blocking the issuance of citizenship cards.”
“We cannot stand for the rule of law to be ignored,” he added.
Grayson says citizenship is a birthright
Grayson, president of the Muscogee Creek Indian Freedmen Band and director of the Museum of Black Creek Freedmen History, said the lawsuit is about more than two citizenship applications.
“It is deeply troubling that on the one-year anniversary of this historic ruling, we are still fighting for compliance with the very decision that affirmed our citizenship,” Grayson said.
She said every day of noncompliance denies Black Creek Freedmen their birthright and identity.
“This fight is bigger than any one of us,” Grayson said. “It belongs to every Black Freedmen descendant who has carried this history, protected these stories and refused to let our identity be dismissed or diminished.”
Kennedy described the decades-long struggle as a “modern-day Trail of Tears.” He said numerous elders have died without seeing the citizenship dispute resolved.
His father, however, lived to see the historic tribal Supreme Court ruling.
Kennedy said his father grew up speaking Creek, living Creek and understanding that his family had always been Creek. He did not believe he would live long enough to see the Nation’s highest court affirm that identity.
The ruling arrived around his 92nd birthday.
What the federal lawsuit seeks
The lawsuit, Grayson v. Principal Chief David Hill, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma under case number 5:26-cv-01874-R.
It seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against Hill, the Citizenship Board and individual board members in their official capacities.
The Muscogee Nation itself is not named as a defendant.
Solomon-Simmons described the filing as an Ex parte Young lawsuit, a legal mechanism that can allow plaintiffs to seek prospective relief against government officials who allegedly continue violating federal law.
The plaintiffs want the court to require Chief David Hill and the board members to comply with the Treaty of 1866 and the tribal Supreme Court’s final judgment. Specifically, they want Grayson and Kennedy to receive their citizenship cards.
“We’re not asking for anything special or for any new rights,” Solomon-Simmons said. “Just the rights guaranteed to our ancestors in 1866.”
Attorney Lauren Briggerman of Squire Patton Boggs said the cards would allow Grayson and Kennedy to exercise the full rights of citizenship, including voting.
“All we are asking today is that the court give these clients what they are entitled to: their citizenship cards, so they can enjoy the full rights of citizenship, including the right to vote,” Briggerman said.
Citizenship could also make qualified descendants eligible for tribal health care, housing, educational opportunities, business assistance and other programs.
Briggerman said the legal team hopes the federal lawsuit will be resolved quickly, although the court has not scheduled a hearing.
Muscogee Nation responds to the lawsuit
In a statement provided to the Oklahoma Public Media Exchange, Hill said the Nation would respond in court after reviewing the complaint.
“We are committed to ensuring that the Muscogee Nation’s Constitution and laws are followed fairly and consistently,” Hill said. “Getting policies right is always more important than getting them done quickly. Anything less would undermine the integrity of our governmental processes and the rights of our citizens.”
Hill said questions involving Muscogee law and governance should be addressed through the Nation’s courts and governmental institutions, consistent with federal law and legal precedent.
Solomon-Simmons said the plaintiffs spent the past year attempting to resolve the dispute within the Nation. They filed three additional motions seeking enforcement from the tribal Supreme Court, but the court ultimately closed the case after placing responsibility for compliance with the Nation’s political branches.
The attorney also alleged that Chief David Hill refused repeated meeting requests.
“We’ve reached out numerous times—by email, by letter, through his attorneys,” Solomon-Simmons said. “He’s refused to meet with us.”
Solomon-Simmons said the plaintiffs also attempted to reach Hill through other tribal leaders and Oklahoma elected officials.
“We don’t want this fight,” he said. “We are one people.”
Treaty dispute raises tribal sovereignty questions
Attorney Brenda Golden, an enrolled Muscogee citizen who supports Freedmen citizenship, joined the plaintiffs at the press conference.
Golden said the Muscogee Nation recently celebrated the anniversary of McGirt v. Oklahoma, the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision recognizing that Congress never disestablished the Muscogee reservation.
She argued that the Nation cannot celebrate federal enforcement of its treaty rights while refusing to honor the treaty’s citizenship provisions for Creek Freedmen.
“We celebrated that treaty last week, and yet we still won’t recognize our brothers and sisters who walked the Trail of Tears with us,” Golden said.
Solomon-Simmons argued that selectively rejecting a provision of the Treaty of 1866 could ultimately weaken the Nation’s sovereignty.
“What Chief Hill and others are doing puts the entire treaty, and the tribe’s legal standing, in jeopardy by refusing to follow a provision they don’t like,” he said.
A citizenship fight spanning generations
Black Creek advocates have pushed for records and greater transparency throughout the legal battle. Earlier this year, Black Creek leaders sought federal oversight records connected to the citizenship dispute.
A museum exhibit documenting Freedmen history has also brought wider attention to the community’s centuries-long relationship with the Muscogee Nation and its decades-long struggle for restored citizenship.
For Solomon-Simmons, the new federal lawsuit is both professional and deeply personal.
His fourth-great-grandfather, Cow Tom, survived the Trail of Tears and the Civil War, became a Creek chief and was one of five Muscogee representatives who negotiated and signed the Treaty of 1866.
Solomon-Simmons’ grandmother, Johnnie Mae Austin, spoke Creek and grew up on her family’s Creek allotment. She was a lead plaintiff in the 2018 federal lawsuit but died without having her citizenship restored.
Solomon-Simmons said he promised her that he would not stop fighting until Black Creek citizenship was restored.
“People have waited their entire lives for this to be resolved,” he said.
For Kennedy, the demand remains as simple as it was before the tribal Supreme Court’s historic ruling:
“We just want to come home.”
Leave a comment