The Muscogee Nation Supreme Court has rescheduled key proceedings in a closely watched citizenship case following a motion from the Nation’s Citizenship Board, the Appellant in the matter. The case, SC2023-10: Citizenship Board of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Rhonda K. Grayson and Jeffrey D. Kennedy, stems from a broader legal debate over tribal citizenship qualifications and the application of recent legislative measures.
The Appellant, represented by legal counsel from the Muscogee Nation Department of Justice, filed a partially opposed motion on May 7, seeking a change of dates for both a pre-argument virtual meeting and the oral arguments originally set for June 18 and June 20, respectively. Lead counsel cited a previously scheduled family vacation between June 12 and July 6, 2025, as the reason for the requested change.
While the Respondents – Rhonda K. Grayson and Jeffrey D. Kennedy – objected to any postponement beyond the current June 20 oral argument date, they did agree to availability between June 9 and June 11 should the Court deem a reset necessary.
In response, the Muscogee Nation Supreme Court issued an official order on May 13, granting the Appellant’s motion in part. The Court rescheduled the virtual meeting to test conferencing software for Monday, June 9, at 10 a.m., and the oral arguments for Tuesday, June 10, at 10 a.m. CST, both to be conducted via Zoom conference.
The Supreme Court’s order emphasized that all procedures and guidelines previously outlined in its April 28, Notice of Removal of Stay of Proceedings and Order Resetting Oral Argument remain in full effect. These rules govern conduct during virtual proceedings and carry the full authority of the Court, with noncompliance subject to penalties including contempt of court, fines or jail time.
This rescheduling comes after significant delays in the case’s timeline, which had been paused by a judicial stay while the constitutionality of Nation Council Act (NCA) 24-077 was under review. The act has bearing on the case’s outcome, as it pertains to tribal citizenship definitions and the authority of the Citizenship Board.
Grayson and Kennedy, the Respondents in the case, have been active figures in tribal citizenship advocacy. Legal representation for the parties includes a roster of high-profile attorneys. The Muscogee (Creek) Nation is represented by Geri Wisner, Jeremy Pittman and Clinton Wilson of the Nation’s Department of Justice. Grayson and Kennedy are represented by attorneys Damario Solomon-Simmons and Beatriz Mate-Kodjo of Solomon Simmons Law and M. David Riggs of Riggs, Abney, Neal, Turpen, Orbison & Lewis. Additional counsel involved includes Graydon D. Luthey Jr., R. Trent Shores and Barrett L. Powers of GableGotwals, as well as Jana L. Knott of Bass Law.
The case has drawn public interest for its implications on who qualifies as a citizen of the Muscogee Nation, particularly in light of ongoing conversations around the rights of Freedmen descendants within various tribal nations. While the specific merits of the Grayson and Kennedy appeal remain under seal, the broader legal context has sparked intense dialogue within Indian Country and legal circles.
Observers can expect the upcoming June 9 and June 10 virtual sessions to be pivotal in the legal trajectory of this case. With the stay lifted and oral arguments approaching, a decision from the Muscogee Nation Supreme Court could offer a significant ruling on tribal sovereignty, citizenship governance and legislative constitutionality within the Nation’s legal framework.
