IN THE MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION SUPREME COURT” “= COURT

—

IN THE MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION SUPREME COURT” “= COURT

FILED

CITIZENSHIP BOARD OF THE ) MAR 0 9 2026

MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION, )

) CONNe DEARMAN

Appellant, ) MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION

) Case No: SC-2023-10 COURT CLERK

VS. ) (District Court Case No.: CV-2020-34)

)

RHONDA K. GRAYSON and )

JEFFREY D. KENNEDY, )

)

Respondents. )

Respondents’ Third Motion for Contempt, for Court Enforcement of Order and Judgment,

and for Order to Show Cause

Damario Solomon-Simmons, MCN # 354

SOLOMONSIMMONSLAW, PLLC

601 S. Boulder Ave., Ste. 602

Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119

918-551-8999 — Phone/918-558-8039 — Facsimile

dss@solomonsimmons.com

Jana L. Knott, MCN #1320

BASS LAW

252 NW 70" St.

Oklahoma City, OK 73116

(405) 262-4040 — Phone/(405) 262-4058 — Facsimile

jana@basslaw.net

M. David Riggs, MCN # 1239

RIGGS, ABNEY, NEAL, TURPEN ORBISON & LEWIS, P.C.

502 West 6th Street

Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119

(918) 587-3161 — Phone/(918) 587-9708 — Facsimile

driggs@riggsabney.com

Attorneys for Respondents

INTRODUCTION

Thirty-one weeks have elapsed since this Court’s clear and unambiguous July 23, 2025

Order and Opinion. Citizenship Bd. of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Rhonda K. Grayson &

Jeffrey D. Kennedy, SC-2023-10 (Sup. Ct. Muscogee (Creek) Nation July 23, 2025) (“July

Opinion”). As of this filing, the Citizenship Board of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation (“Citizenship

Board” or “Board”) has still failed to issue citizenship cards to Rhonda Grayson and Jeffrey

Kennedy. Respondents unfortunately now return to the Court for a third time, requesting relief

from the failures of the Citizenship Board and Principal Chief David Hill (“Chief Hill’), and to

effectuate Respondents’ rights. Muscogee (Creek) Freedmen have long been denied citizenship

rights, and every day that passes constitutes a further denial of such rights in blatant disregard of

this Court’s Order. And with a Special Election scheduled for May 30, 2026, it is imperative that

Respondents be granted their citizenship cards as soon as possible so they can exercise their

fundamental right to vote. After all, “the right of qualified voters, regardless of their political

33 66.

persuasion, to cast their votes effectively” “rank[s] among our most precious freedoms.” Anderson

v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 787 (1983) (quoting Williams v. Rhodes, 398 U.S. 23, 30-31 (1968)).

On August 27, 2025, Respondents filed their original Motion for Contempt. In denying this

Motion for Contempt, the Court afforded the Board a “reasonable amount of time” to establish

procedures in line with the Court’s Order and issue Respondents citizenship cards. Citizenship Bd.

of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Rhonda K. Grayson & Jeffrey D. Kennedy, SC-2023-10, at 2

(Sup. Ct. Muscogee (Creek) Nation Aug. 28, 2025) (“Order Denying Motion for Contempt”)

(emphasis added). That same day, Chief Hill issued Executive Order No. 25-05, (the “Executive

Order”) effectively barring issuance of citizenship cards to Creek Freedmen.! Ex. A (“Exec.

' As described in Respondents’ Renewed Motion for Contempt, Chief Hill's Executive Order directs the Citizenship

Board to “not issue citizenship cards or any form of membership identification cards to [Muscogee (Creek) Freedmen

Order”). Roughly eight weeks elapsed without action from the Citizenship Board, so on October

14, 2025, Respondents renewed their Motion for Contempt, asking this Court to order the

Citizenship Board and Chief Hill to show cause as to why they should not be held in contempt,

arguing that a reasonable time had passed for the Board to issue Respondents’ citizenship cards.

On November 13, 2025, this Court took the Renewed Motion for Contempt under review and

ordered that the Citizenship Board must file monthly status reports with the court. Citizenship Bd.

of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Rhonda K. Grayson & Jeffrey D. Kennedy, SC-2023-10, at 1,

2 (Sup. Ct. Muscogee (Creek) Nation Nov. 13, 2025) (“November Order”).

Now, three months after the sole monthly status report was filed, Respondents file this third

Motion for Contempt. The Citizenship Board’s December 5, 2025 status report proved vague at

best: the Citizenship Board attempted to provide updates, but largely deferred to Chief Hill,

effectively claiming that their hands were tied by both Executive action and inaction. See

Citizenship Bd. of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Rhonda K. Grayson & Jeffrey D. Kennedy, SC-

2023-10, at 1, 2 (Sup. Ct. Muscogee (Creek) Nation Dec. 5, 2025) (“December Status Report”)

(“Appellant Citizenship Board is not the Principal Chief and does not have access to the requested

information.”); id. at 2 (“The Citizenship Board transmitted their comments [on proposed Title 7

amendments] to the Executive Branch and Attorney General’s Office on October 29, 2025... .

Appellant Citizenship Board is unaware of what action was taken thereafter by the Principal Chief

or National Council.”).

descendants] until all law and policy have been fully reviewed and amended to meet the qualification requirements

under Article II of the Treaty of 1866.” Exec. Order { 2.01. The Citizenship Board must “maintain the status quo by

continuing to accept, process, and issue determinations for applications for new Mvskoke citizens in accordance with

current law and policy”—directly contrary to this Court’s Order. /d. { 2.02; July Opinion at 2, 23 (requiring the

Citizenship Board to issue citizenship to Respondents because this is simply “what Mvskoke law demands.”). The

Executive Order has no end-date; it is effective “until further notice.” Exec. Order 4 4.01.

2

Doubling down on his Executive Order, Chief Hill made clear that he had no intention to

follow this Court’s Order. In its status report, the Citizenship Board attached Chief Hill’s responses

to the Citizenship Board’s questions. Jd. at Ex. 2. Chief Hill denied all responsibility, stating that

he is “not a party in the Grayson case, and, as a matter of separation of powers, information about

the implementation of the Constitutional duties and responsibilities of the Executive Branch. . .

falls under the exclusive province of the Principal Chief . . . .” Jd.? Since then, no further status

reports have been filed or ordered, leaving Respondents and this Court in the dark with respect to

the progress of Respondents’ citizenship cards. See November Order (“It is further ordered that

the Court will issue (1) a new set of monthly status report requirements and (2) the next due date

following the filing of the previous month’s status report.”).

A third Motion for Contempt is necessary for several reasons. First, Chief Hill’s Executive

Order halts any processing of citizenship cards for Freedmen descendants for the indefinite

future—or perhaps forever. Monthly status reports do not adequately address this concern, as

evidenced by Chief Hill’s unwillingness to provide a substantive update in response to the

November Order. See December Status Report, at Ex. 2. The Executive Order, combined with

Chief Hill’s unwillingness to comply, fundamentally alters what could otherwise be characterized

as administrative delays, transforming them into a mandate for an indefinite—if not permanent—

injunction on the issuance of Freedmen citizenship cards. Contempt is necessary to reassert and

safeguard the principle that it is his Court’s authority, “province[,] and duty” to “say what the law

is’—not Chief Hill’s. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803).

? On December 18, 2025, Respondents objected to the status report and moved for leave to respond. Citizenship Bd.

of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Rhonda K. Grayson & Jeffrey D. Kennedy, SC-2023-10 (Sup. Ct. Muscogee (Creek)

Nation Dec. 18, 2025). The Court has yet to rule on this filing.

3

Second, Chief Hill recently announced a Special Election scheduled for May 30, 2026. See

A Proclamation by David W. Hill, Principal Chief of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, The Muscogee

Creek Nation (Nov. 25, 2025), https://www.muscogeenation.com/2025/1 1/25/proclamation-ofspecial-election-in-may-2026/. Without citizenship cards, Respondents are unable to register to

vote and will be denied their fundamental right to vote for the second time because of the Board’s

delays.

Finally, as raised in Respondents’ previous motions, the Citizenship Board and Chief Hill

should be held in contempt because of their continued failure to abide by this Court’s Order. The

Citizenship Board’s delays caused by Chief Hill’s Executive Order amounts to deliberate

obfuscation of this Court’s order. An indefinite delay is patently unjustified given this Court’s

clear ruling as to Respondents, nor would a delay of several months (let alone years) be a

“reasonable amount of time to establish appropriate changes.” Order Denying Motion for

Contempt at 2 (emphasis in original). Ms. Grayson and Mr. Kennedy, as lawful citizens of M(C)N,

eagerly await their citizenship cards and remain ready, willing, and able to begin the process of

reconciliation with the Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s leadership.’

But recent developments have forced Ms. Grayson and Mr. Kennedy to reluctantly return

to this Court, file a third Motion for Contempt, and seek redress yet again. This Court should

intervene and hold the Citizenship Board and Chief Hill in contempt, compel the immediate

issuance of citizenship cards to Ms. Grayson and Mr. Kennedy, and award them their fees and

costs associated with this Motion under M(C)N RAP 20(C).

3 Ms. Grayson and Mr. Kennedy have diligently attempted to resolve this issue since July 23, 2025, but have been

stonewalled in their extrajudicial attempts to obtain their citizenship cards. See generally Ex. B (Ms. Grayson’s

October 1, 2025 email); Ex. C {J 2-14; Ex. D §§ 2-14; Ex. E (Damario Solomon-Simmon’s July 24, 2025 letter and

follow-up correspondence): Ex. F (Ms. Grayson’s February 2, 2026 email). And they have already been denied their

right to vote in this Nation’s most recent elections, despite their clear legal entitlement to citizenship in this Nation

and their “excitement to participate in official Mvskoke exercises of citizenship.” Order Denying Motion for Contempt

at 2.

This Court has the power to enforce compliance with its orders through civil contempt. See

Ellis v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation Nat'l Council, SC-2006-07, at 5 (Sup. Ct. Muscogee (Creek)

Nation Aug. 30, 2007); Frye v. Cox, No. CV 90-10, at 1 (Dist. Ct. Muscogee (Creek) Nation Oct.

30, 1990). Importantly, the contempt power reaches Chief Hill: “[t]he contempt power extends to

cover those individuals who, despite not being parties to the action, ‘have notice of the court’s

order and the responsibility to comply with it.’” See, e.g., Schrunk v. J & T Servs., LLC, No. 19-

cv-1137 (SRN/DTS), 2020 WL 9171087, at *3 (D. Minn. 2020) (quoting Chi. Truck Drivers v.

Bhd. Lab. Leasing, 207 F.3d 500, 507 (8th Cir. 2000)); cf FTC v. Productive Mktg., Inc., 136 F.

Supp. 2d 1096, 1103-04 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (holding nonparty in contempt for failure to substantially

comply with court order); Goya Foods, Inc. v. Wallack Mgmt. Co., 290 F.3d 63, 75 (1st Cir. 2002)

(“Nonparties may be liable for civil contempt notwithstanding their nonparty status. ... The critical

datum is whether the nonparty ‘was in active concert or participation with the party specifically

enjoined [and] aided and abetted the defendant in the enjoined conduct.’”). Failure to abide by this

Court’s Order warrants “[a] finding of contempt against the party in non-compliance” or the

“{i]Jmposition of a penalty or costs.” M(C)N RAP 20(C)(4), (5).

To hold a party in contempt for willful disobedience of an order, this Court must find “by

clear and convincing evidence that (1) the allegedly violated Order was valid and lawful; (2) the

Order was clear, definite, and unambiguous; and (3) the alleged violator(s) had the ability to

comply with the Order.” Ellis, SC-2006-07, at 5. This is similar to the standard for contempt in a

federal court: the moving party must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person

allegedly in contempt violated the court’s order. See Chi. Truck Drivers, 207 F.3d at 505. Further,

the Nation’s executive branch and its officials are a proper subject of a contempt order when the

three elements are met. See Ellis, SC-2006-07, at 5-6.

I. The Citizenship Board

All three elements are satisfied here as to the Citizenship Board. First, this Court’s July

Opinion was valid and lawful, as confirmed by the August 20, 2025 Order and Opinion that denied

the Citizenship Board’s petition for rehearing. Second, the July Opinion unambiguously directed

the Citizenship Board to “apply the Treaty of 1866 and issue citizenship to the Respondents, and

any other future applicant who is able to establish a lineal descendant on the Creek By Blood

Dawes Roll, or the Creek Freedmen Dawes Roll.” July Opinion at 23. And third, the Citizenship

Board has chosen to follow Chief Hill’s Executive Order, refusing to comply with the July Opinion

despite having eight months to issue Ms. Grayson and Mr. Kennedy their citizenship cards. See

also December Status Report at 5-6 (describing reasonable time frame of 60-90 days to make

procedural amendments). The Citizenship Board has chosen to listen to Chief Hill instead of this

Court. Those decisions have consequences.

As Ms. Grayson and Mr. Kennedy have met their burden as to the first three elements for

contempt, the burden shifts to the Citizenship Board to show its inability to comply—a burden that

it cannot meet. See Chi. Truck Drivers, 207 F.3d at 505. To show that compliance is presently

impossible, the defendant must demonstrate: “(1) that they were unable to comply, explaining why

categorically and in detail, (2) that their inability to comply was not self-induced, and (3) that they

made in good faith all reasonable efforts to comply.” United States v. Santee Sioux Tribe of Neb.,

254 F.3d 728, 736 (8th Cir. 2001) (quoting Chi. Truck Drivers, 207 F.3d at 506). The Citizenship

Board cannot and will not meet its burden because it has no excuse (and has articulated no valid

excuse) for failing to issue the citizenship cards. -

The Citizenship Board cannot rely on Chief Hill’s Executive Order as a justification for

noncompliance. Even in the face of a contrary executive order, a coordinate government agency

still must obey a judicial order. In JG.G., et al. v. Trump, after President Trump signed a

proclamation removing certain individuals from the United States under the Alien Enemies Act,

the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered an ex parte temporary restraining order

(“TRO”) preventing the government defendants from deporting the plaintiffs. Order, No. 25-766,

at 3-5 (D.D.C. Apr. 16, 2025). When the government deported the plaintiffs in violation of the

TRO, the court held it in contempt, regardless of the President’s directive. Jd. at 31-37. The court

declared that “[t]he Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders —

especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it.” /d. at 2. The

same reasoning applies to the Treaty of 1866 here, which this Court recognized is “the supreme

law of the land.” July Opinion at 21.

Further, the Citizenship Board presently has the ability to comply. The Citizenship Board

has its own independent rulemaking authority conferred by Muscogee (Creek) Nation Code

Annotated (“M(C)NCA”) Title 7 § 2-109. The Board can “prescribe, promulgate, and enforce,

without National Council approval, such written rules and regulations as may be necessary.” Id.

(emphasis added). The Board itself has admitted that they have “prepared” “amended policies and

procedures”—but claim that they must wait for the National Council, directly contrary to

M(C)NCA Title 7 § 2-109; see Ex. F (email from Allan Colbert Jr. to Rhonda Grayson on Feb. 17,

2026). And although Chief Hill is the head of the executive branch, he has no legal authority over

the Citizenship Board’s administrative functions. See M(C)NCA Title 7 §§ 2-106, 2-107;

Muscogee (Creek) Const. art. HI. The Citizenship Board is a constitutionally created board, and

Chief Hill has no power over the Board beyond appointing its members. See Title 7 § 2-101;

Muscogee (Creek) Const. art. III. Thus, the Citizenship Board does not have to wait for any action

by the National Council or Chief Hill; it has the power to grant Respondents’ citizenship cards

now.

Furthermore, in civil rights cases, delaying compliance with a court’s order is cause for

civil contempt. In Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, the

court issued several orders requiring vacant magnet school seats to be filled by a certain percentage

of black students. 666 F. Supp. 159, 160 (E.D. Ark. 1987). The court found the school district in

contempt after the school board voted not to fill seats and told the court they intended to ask the

court to modify the orders. /d. at 161 (“Rather than energetically and diligently complying with

the orders, the LRSD voted to ask for modification after the first release of seats was a fait

accompli.”). The court warned “any further delay in the implementation of the orders” would

subject the school board to “severe sanctions.” Jd.

Similarly, in Spangler v. Pasadena City Board of Education, the court ordered the school

board to implement a recruiting program that would “actively seek out minority group

administrators, supervisors, and counselors who are interested in employment with the [school

district].” 384 F. Supp. 846, 847 (C.D. Cal. 1974). The court held the school board in contempt

when the school board slow-rolled compliance by making “temporary” appointments, explaining

that “under the guise of making ‘temporary’ administrative appointments of a continuing nature,

the Board could ‘permanently’ frustrate the aims of the Plan relative to the hiring of minority

administrators.” Jd. at 848-50. |

Like those school boards, the Citizenship Board, at the direction of Chief Hill, continues

to drag its feet in what can only be described as bad faith. Instead of “energetically and diligently”

granting citizenship, Little Rock Sch. Dist., 666 F. Supp. at 161, the Citizenship Board has and will

continue to choose fidelity to the executive branch over a valid judicial order from this Court. As

admitted in the December status update, the Board’s decision to abide by Chief Hill’s Executive

Order has completely halted the processing of citizenship cards. See December Status Update at

1-2 (“Appellant Citizenship Board is not the Principal Chief and does not have access to the

requested information.”); id. at 2-3 (“Appellant Citizenship Board is unaware of what action was

taken thereafter by the Principal Chief or National Council.”); id. at 3 (“The Board has not taken

any further action to promulgate these rules until code amendments are passed. The Citizenship

Board is unable to act independently to modify the statutory framework of the Citizenship

code[.]”).

Tribal entities are no strangers to civil contempt, as tribal and federal courts alike have

found civil contempt an appropriate remedy to compel compliance from election boards and tribal

councils. In 2000, the Supreme Court of the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes held an election board in

contempt and ordered it to place a name on the election ballot after it failed to comply with the

initial order. Cheyenne-Arapaho Election Bd. v. Tabor, 7 Okla. Trib. 121, at 1 (Sup. Ct. Cheyenne-

Arapaho Tribes Oct. 27, 2000). The district court had found that its order was valid, definite, and

clearly violated by the election board, and the Cheyenne-Arapaho Supreme Court affirmed. See id.

Similarly, in 2001, the Eighth Circuit in Santee Sioux Tribe held members of a Tribal

Council in contempt because the members passed a tribal referendum to keep the Ohiya Casino

open, directly contravening the court’s injunction ordering the Tribe to cease class III gaming. 254

F.3d at 731, 736-37. Specifically, the court reasoned: “The Council members cannot hide behind

a spurious tribal referendum because the Tribe cannot pass such a referendum in contravention of

federal law, including the lawful orders of a federal court.” /d. at 737. While the Council members

“attempt[ed] to cloak their actions with the cape of the tribal referendum,” the court reasoned that

the “Tribe’s noncompliance with federal law cannot serve as justification for the Council’s

inability to comply with the court order.” Jd.

So too here. The Citizenship Board “attempt[s] to cloak [its] actions” by obeying an

obstructive Executive Order from Chief Hill instead of a lawful Order from this Court. The

Citizenship Board cannot hide behind the Executive Order to avoid complying with this Court’s

order, and the status report suggests that the executive branch does not intend to comply with the

Order in the near future, or perhaps at all. Accordingly, this Court should hold the Citizenship

Board in contempt.

II. Chief Hill

Chief Hill should likewise be held in contempt for his obstructive Executive Order,

described supra. “The contempt power extends to cover those individuals who, despite not being

parties to the action, ‘have notice of the court’s order and the responsibility to comply with it.’”

Schrunk v. J & T Servs., LLC, No. 19-cv-1137 (SRN/DTS), 2020 WL 9171087, at *3 (D. Minn.

2020) (quoting Chi. Truck Drivers, 207 F.3d at 507). Chief Hill certainly has notice of the Court’s

Order, as evidenced by the Executive Order and his response to the Citizenship Board’s request

for information.

The Executive Order, which Chief Hill based solely on “the executive authority vested in

[him] as Principal Chief,” Exec. Order at 1, itself proves his knowledge of the Court’s Order,

directing the Citizenship Board not to grant any descendants of Muscogee (Creek) Freedmen

citizenship—including Respondents. Chief Hill’s mandate directly contradicts his disclaimers,

both in federal court and in the M(C)N District Court, that he does not have any role in processing

citizenship cards. See, e.g., Grayson v. Citizenship Bd. of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, CV-2020-

34, at 2 (Dist. Ct. Muscogee (Creek) Nation Jan. 6, 2023) (Def.’s Mot. Quash Non-Party

10

Deposition Subpoena) (arguing Chief Hill “has not been involved in any aspect of Plaintiff's

case.”); Ex. G 4:24-5:3 (Tr. Hrg. Mot. Quash) (“Chief Hill is not on the citizenship board, has

nothing to do with the involvement of records or rolls.”); Graham v. Haaland, No. 4:22-cv-404,

at 2 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 31, 2023) (Def. David Hill’s Mot. Dismiss) (arguing that Chief Hill is a tribal

official with “no authority or control over the Nation’s citizenship rolls.”). Yet, he is actively using

his position as Executive to prevent the Citizenship Board from issuing citizenship to Respondents.

As established supra, elements one and two are satisfied under the contempt standard. See

Ellis, SC-2006-07, at 5. And as for element three, to comply with the Court’s Order, Chief Hill

was not required to take any action at all. Instead, he is actively obstructing this Court’s order. As

“Judge Learned Hand explained that, while no court can make a decree that binds ‘the world at

large,’ a non-party ‘may be punished if he either abet[s] the defendant or [is] legally identified

with him.” Chi. Truck Drivers, 207 F.3d at 507 (quoting Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff, 42 F.2d 832,

833 (2d Cir. 1930)).

Chief Hill is aiding and abetting—if not directly forcing—the Citizenship Board’s

contempt in this proceeding. His unlawful Executive Order manufactured complications he

claimed were caused by this Court’s clear Order; he falsely claimed that the Executive Branch

needs to “work on the necessary amendments and/or adoption of new laws” as well as “appropriate

policies and procedures.” Exec. Order Ff 1.06, 2.01. As a result, his Executive Order forbids the

Board from following this Court’s order and issuing citizenship cards to Muscogee (Creek)

Freedmen descendants indefinitely.

Chief Hill provides minimal detail with respect to timeline; he presents no steps taken by

the executive branch or any detail about what laws and procedures he believes must be put in place

or their justification. His response to the Citizenship Board when asked for updates echoes the

same themes in his Executive Order. He asserts:

I am not a party in the Grayson case, and, as a matter of separation of powers,

information about the implementation of the Constitutional duties and

responsibilities of the Executive Branch departments and officials, including

communication with the National Council on proposed legislation, falls under the

exclusive province of the Principal Chief and is not generally subject to disclosure

except as required by Nation law.

December Status Report, at Ex. 2. His substantive updates are similarly lacking, stating executive

departments are reviewing policies to determine what amendments may be necessary and

executive branch officials are discussing proposed amendments with the Office of the Attorney

General. Jd.; see also Abrego Garcia v. Noem, No. 8:25-cv-0095 1-PX, at 1 (D. Md. May 13, 2025)

(warning Government that failure to comply or otherwise respond will be “construed as an

intentional refusal to comply with this Court’s orders.”). Instead, Chief Hill conveniently forgets

the core constitutional principle of judicial review, usurping this Court’s role in the M(C)N’s

constitutional framework by obstructing the Citizenship Board from carrying out the July Opinion.

Cf Marco M. v. Bondi, 0:25-cv-04816, at 3 (D. Minn. Jan. 25, 2026) (Order Adopting R&R)

(“There has been an undeniable move by the Government in the past month to defy court orders

or at least stretch the legal process to the breaking point in an attempt to deny [constitutional

rights].”). By conditioning the lawful grant of citizenship cards ordered by this Court on

unnecessary legislative and constitutional actions that could take years, Chief Hill not only

oversteps the bounds of his own executive authority—he also seeks to nullify this Court’s July

Opinion.

Respectfully, Respondents maintain that there are no laws that need to be adopted or

policies that need to be changed. This Court made clear that the Citizenship Board must “apply

the Treaty of 1866 and issue citizenship [cards] to the Respondents.” July Opinion at 23. Ms.

12

Grayson and Mr. Kennedy are M(C)N citizens—all that is left is for the Citizenship Board to issue

their citizenship cards. This timeline is particularly concerning given the upcoming May 30, 2026,

special election.* While the constitutional amendments Muscogee (Creek) Nation citizens will

vote on are not solidified, the proposed amendments will no doubt impact Respondents. On

Wednesday, February 19, 2026, the M(C)N Business, Finance, and Justice Committee passed

referendum legislation to go to the full council. Meredith Johnson, BFJ Passes Referendum

Legislation, MVSKOKE Media (Feb. 24, 2026), https://www.mvskokemedia.com/bfj-passesreferendum-legislation. This proposed legislation? will allow Chief Hill to extend his tenure and

continue interfering with Respondents’ right to citizenship and illegally pack this Court if it seeks

to aid Respondents in any way. Under this Court’s Order, Respondents are entitled to the full extent

of citizenship—including the fundamental right to vote. Further, Respondents are concerned that

if the tribe decides to place Muscogee (Creek) Freedmen citizenship at issue at the special election

(which, in the first instance, would contravene this Court’s Order), Respondents would be unable

to voice their opinion on an issue directly affecting their own rights because of Chief Hill’s

obstructionist actions. Cf Majority Forward y. Ben Hill Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 509 F. Supp. 3d

1348, 1356 (M.D. Ga. 2020) (“Courts routinely deem restrictions on fundamental voting rights

irreparable injury because once the election occurs, there can be no do-over and no redress.”)

(internal citations omitted).

4 The Voter Registration deadline for the May 30, 2026 special election is May 19, 2026, at 5:00 P.M. CT. 2026

Special Election Dates & Deadlines (last visited Mar. 7, 2026), https://www.muscogeenation.com/wpcontent/uploads/2026/0 1/Special-Election-Dates-Deadlines-2026.png.

5 NCA 26-030 (amending Article VII, Section 2 of the M(C)N Constitution to permit Special Justices to be appointed

if Supreme Court Justices recuse themselves to ensure seven justices hear each case); NCA 26-031 (amending Article

IX of the M(C)N Constitution to read “The Special Election may be called By the Principal Chief and combined with

a General Election if the constitutional amendment ordinance is enacted at least'90 days prior to a General Election.”);

NCA 26-037 (amending Article V, Section 1(a) and (c) of the M(C)N Constitution to “change[] the terms of office

for Principal Chief and Second Chief from two consecutive terms (8 years) to three terms (12 years total, consecutive

or non-consecutive”)). /d.

13

Chief Hill’s actions are especially disappointing, given his clear understanding of the

sanctity of the Treaty of 1866, which according to Chief Hill, is “the supreme law of the land.”

See Ex. H (Chief Hill’s August 30, 2023, Letter to Governor Kevin Stitt about State of the State

Address), see also Principal Chief David Hill, Facebook, (Oct. 8, 2025 at 04:33 P.M.),

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1 463633762 190345 &set=a.336386338248432

(emphasizing hunting and fishing rights established by treaties between tribes and the United

States); Principal Chief David Hill, Facebook, (Feb. 2, 2026 at 03:29 P.M.),

https://www.facebook.com/1 000563 1206 1759/posts/pfbid027CaLJueQy8nLTjJRU3MK YKgNW

3mJsSsJFhZXnqzUTrpdDV269gWEtZRALLH leTvsDI/ (criticizing Governor Stitt’s stance on

tribal sovereignty); Braden Harper, Seven years later, Stitt still does not understand Tribal

sovereignty, Mvskoke Media (Feb. 3, 2026), https://www.mvskokemedia.com/seven-years-laterstitt-still-does-not-understand-tribal-sovereignty/ (discussing Chief Hill’s response). He respects

and upholds this supremacy selectively; he agrees that the Treaty protects the Tribe’s hunting and

fishing rights but continues to deny that this same Treaty grants citizenship to Muscogee (Creek)

Freedmen. .

With the issuance of the Executive Order, Chief Hill injected himself into this controversy,

despite statements to the contrary. See, e.g., December Status Report, at | (“I am not a party in the

Grayson case[.]”). He claimed this Court “encroach[ed] on the authority of the other branches,”

possibly causing “a constitutional crisis.” Exec. Order J 1.05. But in the next breath, Chief Hill

attempts to nullify the July Opinion, directing the Citizenship Board to “not issue citizenship cards

or any form of membership identification cards to [descendants of Muscogee (Creek) Freedmen]

until all law and policy have been fully reviewed and amended.” Jd. J§ 1.05, 2.01. Compare Exec.

Order No. 14389(Feb. 20, 2026) (President Trump’s executive order reinstituting tariffs under

14

different provision hours after Supreme Court declared tariffs unconstitutional), with Exec. Order

(Chief Hill’s executive order halting processing of citizenship cards weeks after Muscogee (Creek)

Nation Supreme Court declared Muscogee (Creek) Freedmen citizens).

As Executive, Chief Hill has the duty to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the M(C)N.

To be clear: the Executive Branch “cannot do indirectly what [it] is barred from doing directly’—

it cannot create an end-run around a lawful order which it is bound to follow. Nat’! Rifle Ass’n of

Am. v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 190 (2024). Chief Hill has overstepped, encroaching on the Citizenship

Board’s independence and usurping this Court’s authority. Such willful and blatant obstruction of

a lawful court order cannot be tolerated. Accordingly, this Court should hold Chief Hill in

contempt, or alternatively, order a hearing to show cause as to why he should not be held in

contempt.

CONCLUSION

As with the two prior motions for contempt, Ms. Grayson and Mr. Kennedy do not file this

Motion lightly. They would prefer—and have repeatedly sought—a proactive, collaborative

resolution with this Nation’s leadership. The Citizenship Board’s willful decision to follow Chief

Hill’s illegal Executive Order and its failure to heed this Court’s instruction to issue citizenship

cards are just two more barriers in a series of carefully placed obstacles in the Executive Branch’s

forty-five-year-long effort to defy the Treaty of 1866’s command that the descendants of “Creeks

of African descent” shall enjoy citizenship with M(C)N. After this Court resisted the Executive

Branch’s attack on its judicial authority via the unconstitutional special justice law, and after this

Court unambiguously ordered full compliance with the Treaty of 1866, Ms. Grayson and Mr.

Kennedy respectfully submit that action is, unfortunately, needed once more.°

® Regrettably, without action from this Court, Respondents are left with no other option for relief besides filing in

federal court. See, e.g., Vann v. Kempthorne, 534 F.3d 741 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

15

This Court should (1) find the Citizenship Board in contempt for its willful failure to

comply with this Court’s July 23, 2025 Order and Opinion, (2) order the Citizenship Board to issue

Ms. Grayson and Mr. Kennedy citizenship cards immediately, (3) hold Chief Hill in contempt for

his obstruction of this Court’s July 23, 2025 Order and Opinion, and (4) award Ms. Grayson and

Mr. Kennedy their attorney fees and costs associated with this Motion pursuant to M(C)N RAP

20(C). Only by enforcing its Order can this Court demonstrate that the Muscogee (Creek) Nation

remains a “government of laws and not of men.””

Respectfully submitted,—

— it. a gai

<a Fa

nln, D a es

¢ Damario Solomon-Simmons, MCN # 354

SOLOMONSIMMONSLAW, PLLC

601 S. Boulder Ave., Ste. 602

Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119

918-551-8999 — Phone/9 118-558-8039 — Facsimile

dss@solomonsimmons.com

Jana L. Knott, MCN #1320

BASS LAW

252 NW 70" St.

Oklahoma City, OK 73116

(405) 262-4040 — Phone/(405) 262-4058 — Facsimile

jana@basslaw.net

M. David Riggs, MCN # 1239

RIGGS, ABNEY, NEAL, TURPEN ORBISON & LEWIS, P.C.

502 West 6th Street

Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119

(918) 587-3161 — Phone/(918) 587-9708 — Facsimile

driggs@riggsabney.com

Attorneys for Respondents

’ Mass. Const. pt. 1, art. XXX (1780).

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on the 9"" day of March 2026, I caused the foregoing Respondents’

Third Renewed Motion for Contempt, for Court Enforcement of Order and Judgment, and for

Order to Show Cause to be transmitted to the following counsel of record via email and U.S.

Mail, postage prepaid:

Rod W. Wiemer Geri Wisner

114 North Grand Clinton A. Wilson

Okmulgee, OK 74447 Jeremy Pittman

Tulsa, OK 74120 THE MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION

rwattys@sbcglobal.net OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

P.O Box 580

Okmulgee, OK 74447

gwisner@mcnag.com

cwilson@mcnag.com

jpittman@mcnag.com

arya py >

EXHIBIT A

Muscogee (CREEK) Nation

Executive Office

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 25-05

PURPOSE: TO ESTABLISH THE FRAMEWORK FOR INCORPORATING THE

QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS IN ARTICLE II OF THE TREATY OF 1866 IN

MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION LAW FOR THE

MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION CITIZENSHIP OFFICE, PURSUANT TO THE,

SUPREME COURT ORDER IN CASE SC 2023-10

Authority: By virtue of the executive authority vested in me as Principal Chief by the Constitution

and the laws of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation (“Nation”), I hereby order the following:

1.00

1.01

1.02

1.03

Findings:

On July 23, 2025, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Supreme Court issued its Order and

Opinion (the “Order’) in the case of Citizenship Board of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation v.

Rhonda K. Grayson and Jeffrey D. Kennedy, SC-2023-10, on the question of whether the

Freedmen and their lineal‘descendants are entitled to “all the rights and privileges of native

citizens” as guaranteed by the Treaty of 1866 between the United States and the Muscogee

(Creek) Nation.

The Order makes a specific finding that there have been no acts of Congress to abrogate

' the Treaty of 1866 and thai “this treaty stands as the supreme law of the land under both

federal and Mvskoke law.” The Order concludes that the Citizenship Board must apply

the provisions of Article I] of the Treaty of 1866 when considering Freedmen descendants

citizenship applications. The Order also declares the reference to “by blood” citizenship

in the Nation’s Constitution and in the Nation’s Code, rules, regulations, policies, or

procedures as being unlawful and void ab initio, although nothing in the Order provides

any guidance for how this declaration affects the Nation’s present day governmental

operations, other than the processing of citizenship applications.

I, as Principal Chief, ard every elected officer and every judge and justice of this Nation

took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and the Nation’s

Supreme Court has previously held the Constitution “is the Supreme Law of the Muscogee

(Creek ) Nation . . .” Harjo v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation Election Board, SC 07-50

(Muscogee (Creek) 2007).

PO. Box 580 Okmulgee, OK 74447-0580 1-800-482-1979

1.04

1.05

1.06

2.02

2.03

The Order finding that any reference to “by blood” citizenship in the Constitution and

Nation laws and policy as being unlawful and declared to be stricken is directly contrary

to the process of amending the Constitution, which is a power reserved to the National

Council and a vote of the eligible voters, under Article IX of the Constitution, and is

directly contrary to the process of amending the laws and policies of the Nation, which are

powers reserved to the Legislative and Executive Branches of the Nation.

I, as Principal Chief, have always respected the doctrine of separation of powers between

the branches of the Nation’s government, and I do believe in each branch being co-equal,

with none having greater powers than the others. That being said, I believe the Order’s

directives encroaching on the authority of the other branches and the rights of the citizens

have the potential for creating a constitutional crisis within the Nation; however, I also

believe a critical role for the Principal Chief is take all necessary action to protect and

preserve the stability of the government during difficult times. Even though my hope is

that the citizens and all elected officials continue to discuss these issues and find solutions

that are constitutionally sound and respectful of the Nation’s sovereign rights, the

Muscogee (Creek) Nation Administration is currently challenged with the task of

implementing the Order and following the direction of the Supreme Court to apply Article

II of the Treaty of 1866 and without reference to “by blood” citizenship in any application

for citizenship by Freedmen descendants.

This will require the Administration, the Citizenship Office and the National Council to

work on the necessary amendments and/or adoption of new laws to incorporate the

qualification requirements under Article II of the Treaty of 1866 and to adopt appropriate

policies and procedures establishing the necessary evidence and docunientation that

Citizenship Office would require to consider applications in a standard and consistent

manner.

Authority/Action:

The Office of the Principal Chief hereby declares and directs the Citizenship Office to

continue accepting applications from Freedmen descendant applicants, but not issue

citizenship cards or any form of membership identification cards to such persons until all

law and policy: have been fully reviewed and amended to meet the qualification

requirements under Article II of the Treaty of 1866.

The Office of the Principal Chief further declares and directs the Citizenship Office to

maintain the status quo by continuing to accept, process, and issue determinations for

applications for new Mvskoke citizens in accordance with current law and policy.

All departments are hereby directed to maintain the status quo in daily operations by

continuing to follow the established policies and procedures for services they provide and,

also, such department heads should begin reviewing such policies and procedures to

propose necessary amendments to be consistent with the Order.

2.04

2.05

4.01

When the necessary reviews are complete, we will follow the normal processes established

by the Executive Branch to review and approve prior to the setting forth the adoption of

changes.

Where necessary changes require National Council approval, each department will submit

those changes to the Office of Principal Chief, in accordance with established procedures,

and the Principal Chief will submit the changes to the National Council for its review and

approval.

Distribution of the Executive Order:

Copies of this Executive Order will be distributed to the National Council, Supreme Court,

District Court, Office of the Attorney General, Office of Administration, Departments of

the Administration, Managers, Independent Agencies, Boards, Commissions, and

Chartered Communities within the organizational structure of the Muscogee (Creek)

Nation.

Effective Date:

This Executive Order shall become effective immediately and continued until further

notice.

David W. Hill

Principal Chief

ISSUE DATE: August 28, 2025

EXHIBIT B

Cc: Nathan Wilson <nwilson@men-citizenship.com>; jeff kennedy <jdkennedy11@sbcglobal.net>

Sent: Wednesday, October 1, 2025 at 04:58:29 PM CDT

Subject: Re: Citizenship Application-Resubmission

Nathan and Allan,

| am reaching out again to inquire about the status of our citizenship cards. Jeff and | visited the

Okmuigee office on August 21, 2025, and spoke with the clerk, who mentioned that the matter

would need to be discussed with the Attorney General. We were informed that it would take

approximately 4 to 6 weeks to receive the cards.

We would greatly appreciate any updates you can provide regarding the issuance timeline.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Kind regards,

Rhonda Grayson

On Monday, August 4, 2025 at 12:14:41 PM CDT, Rhonda Grayson <rhondagrayson@cox.net> wrote:

Hi Nathan and Allen,

| just spoke with Ron Graham, and a citizenship staff member told him that we would not

receive our cards until mid-October. Is this correct? Please advise as soon as possible.

Best regards,

Rhonda Grayson

On Sunday, August 3, 2025 at 01:16:01 AM CDT, Rhonda Grayson <rhondagrayson@cox.net> wrote:

Hi Allen,

| hope you are doing well. | wanted to reach out before we file a formal inquiry to the MCN

Supreme regarding the status of our citizenship cards. Both Jeff and | understood that the cards

would be issued immediately in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling. Could you help us

understand the reason for this additional delay?

EXHIBIT C

AFFIDAVIT OF RHONDA K. GRAYSON

STATE OF OKLAHOMA )

) ss.

COUNTY OF _OKMthemg )

1, RHONDA K. GRAYSON, being of legal age and being first duly sworn upon oath, depose

and state as follows:

1.

N

bo

The Muscogee (Creek) Nation (*MCN”) Supreme Court issued an Order and Opinion on

July 23, 2025, directing the MCN Citizenship Board to issue citizenship to me and Mr.

Jeffrey D. Kennedy.

On July 23, 2025, I sent an email to Nathan Wilson, Director of the MCN Citizenship

Board and Allan Colbert Jr., Office Manager of the MCN Citizenship Board providing a

courtesy copy of the MCN Supreme Court’s Order and Opinion and inquiring about the

procedure to process our citizenship applications. A true and correct copy of this email

and the emails described in Paragraphs 3-12 below are attached to this Affidavit as

Exhibit A.' See Exh. A at 6. .

On July 24, 2025, Mr. Colbert Jr. responded to my email and stated that the MCN

Citizenship Board would be processing our previously submitted citizenship applications,

and that the MCN Citizenship Board “is meeting soon to update the citizenship policies

and procedures to comply with the Supreme Court decision.” Exh. A at 5.

On July 24, 2025, I responded to Mr. Colbert Jr.’s email inquiring about the application

process for others impacted by the Supreme Court decision and suggested that a

statement or meeting could help streamline the process and reduce calls to the MCN

Citizenship Board office. Exh. A at 4.

I sent a follow-up email to Mr. Colbert Jr. and Mr. Wilson on July 24, 2025 asking the

MCN Citizenship Board office to clarify whether the office wanted individuals to call the

office to request their applications be re-processed and reiterated my suggestion for a

meeting. Exh. A at 3-4.

In my follow-up email on July 24, 2025, on behalf of Mr. Jeffrey D. Kennedy and several

of my family members, I requested that their applications be processed. Exh. A at 4.

On July 28, 2025, I emailed Mr. Colbert Jr. and Mr. Wilson again, regarding comments

made by an employee of the MCN Citizenship Board office to another member of the

' Due to privacy concerns, email addresses in these emails and the names of individuals who-are not parties to the

case betore the MCN Supreme Court and are not associated with the MCN Citizenship Board have been redacted in

these emails.

10.

16.

Muscogee Creek Indian Freedmen Band, stating that the office was taking applications.

but not processing them “because the Creek Nation is still discussing the Creek Nation

Supreme Court ruling regarding Creek Freedmen.” Exh. A at 3.

On July 29, 2025. Mr. Colbert Jr. responded to my email and apologized “for any

confusion” MCN Citizenship Board “staff may have caused” with their comments. Exh.

Aat 2.

In his July 29, 2025 email. Mr. Colbert Jr. again stated that the MCN Citizenship Board

would be meeting “to update the policies and procedures necessary to comply with the

Supreme Court decision. Applications are being taken and will be processed in alignment

with the new policies and procedures.” Exh. A at 2.

On August 3, 2025, having received no further response from Mr. Colbert Jr. or Mr.

Wilson, I followed up via email requesting any information or explanation for the

continued delay. In that email. I provided the language from the MCN Supreme Court's

Order and Opinion requiring the MCN Citizenship Board to issue citizenship to me and

Mr. Jeffrey D. Kennedy. Exh. A at I.

. On August 4, 2025, I again followed up via email to Mr. Colbert Jr. and Mr. Wilson

inquiring as to the accuracy of another statement made by MCN Citizenship Board staff

to a member of the Muscogee Creek Indian Freedmen Band (Mr. Ron Graham) that the

citizenship cards would not be issued until October. I requested a response “as soon as

possible” given the already-existing delay. Exh. A at 1.

. On August 4, 2025. instead of responding to my emails, the MCN Citizenship Board filed

a Petition for Rehearing, which was denied on August 20, 2025.

. On August 21. 2025. in light of the MCN Supreme Court’s Order and Opinion decision.

Mr. Jeffrey D. Kennedy and I visited the MCN Citizenship Board office in person to

retrieve our citizenship cards.

. On August 21, 2025, MCN Citizenship Board staff informed us that our cards would not

be available tor another 4-6 weeks.

. On August 21. 2025, we requested to speak with either Director Nathan Wilson or Office

Manager Allan Colbert, Jr. regarding the additional delay. but we were told they were

currently unavailable and would be meeting with the MCN Attorney General to discuss

the maiter.

To date. | have not received any additional information from the MCN Citizenship Board,

nor have | or Mr. Jeffrey D. Kennedy been issued citizenship or a citizenship card in

accordance with the MCN Supreme Court’s Order and Opinion.

17. This is true of many other similarly situated individuals who are entitled to citizenship

under the MCN Supreme Court’s Order and Opinion but who have not been issued

citizenship or citizenship cards, such as my family members referenced in Paragraph 6.

18. Without citizenship, we cannot vote in the Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s upcoming

election. The right to vote is fundamental and essential, it is the hallmark of citizenship,

and it is the liteblood of democracy. The Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s upcoming

September 20. 2025 election requires citizens to register to vote by September 9, 2025. If

we are not issued citizenship by the MCN Citizenship Board before September 9. we will

be deprived of the opportunity to have our voices heard as citizens of the Muscogee

(Creek) Nation.

[ant Wy Goan yn

RHONDA K. GRAYSGN

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me on this the 27 day of August, 2025.

Cb! by0 Ox

Ai NOTARY PUBLIC

RR Lect Os STATE OF_Okl Vic

toetegh Okl ano ms

CTPA My Commission Expires: +f/7¢e

eeettg

” cM SOare’

> eae

if 7

>i ean, H

; en

too

EXHIBIT D

AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY D. KENNEDY

STATE OF OKLAHOMA )

) ss.

COUNTY OF 2 Kahema _)

I, JEFFREY D. KENNEDY, being of legal age and being first duly sworn upon oath, depose

and state as follows:

No

Ley)

The Muscogee (Creek) Nation (“MCN”) Supreme Court issued an Order and Opinion on

July 23, 2025, directing the MCN Citizenship Board to issue citizenship to me and Ms.

Rhonda K. Grayson.

On July 23, 2025, Rhonda Grayson sent an email, copied to me, to Nathan Wilson,

Director of the MCN Citizenship Board and Allan Colbert Jr.. Office Manager of the

MCN Citizenship Board providing a courtesy copy of the MCN Supreme Court’s Order

and Opinion and inquiring about the procedure to process our citizenship applications. A

true and correct copy of this email and the emails described in Paragraphs 3-12 below are

attached to this Affidavit as Exhibit A.!' See Exh. A at 6.

On July 24, 2025. Mr. Colbert Jr. responded to Ms. Grayson’s email and stated that the

MCN Citizenship Board would be processing our previously submitted citizenship

applications, and that the MCN Citizenship Board “is meeting soon to update the

citizenship policies and procedures to comply with the Supreme Court decision.” Exh. A

at 5.

On July 24, 2025, Ms. Grayson responded to Mr. Colbert Jr.’s email inquiring about the

application process for others impacted by the Supreme Court decision and suggested that

a statement or meeting could help streamline the process and reduce calls to the MCN

Citizenship Board office. Exh. A at 4.

Ms. Grayson sent a follow-up email, copied to me, to Mr. Colbert Jr. and Mr. Wilson on

July 24, 2025 asking the MCN Citizenship Board office to clarify whether the office

wanted individuals to call the office to request their applications be re-processed and

reiterated her suggestion for a meeting. Exh. A at 3-4.

In Ms. Grayson’s follow-up email on July 24, 2025. she noted that I was copied on the

email thread and requested on my behalf that my application be processed. Exh. A at 4.

' Due to privacy concerns, email addresses in these emails and the names of individuals whe are not parties to the

case before the MCN Supreme Court and are not associated with the MCN Citizenship Board have been redacted in

these emails,

[OCR skipped on page(s) 31-46]

[Read from a scan; the first 30 pages.]