OKMULGEE – The Muscogee Creek Nation Supreme Court issued a final order in the Grayson/Kennedy case on Tuesday, May 12. The order denies the motions previously filed for contempt, a restraining order, and a preliminary injunction. The order closes the case.
The MCN SC finds that the status reports in the case show that both the legislative and executive branches are taking steps to comply with the court’s order, noting that the court would prefer the order be implemented more quickly.
The order points out that the MCN National Council and Election Board are not parties to the Grayson/Kennedy case, and for that reason, the court will not grant the motions filed.
The order states that the question put before the court in the Grayson/Kennedy case concerned the MCN Constitution and the Treaty of 1866. Additionally, enforcement of the order is a separate legal question that must be addressed in a new enforcement case that includes all necessary parties.
The court order also addresses concerns put forth by the legislative branch and MCN citizens. In the remarks, the court discusses its history and the Mvskoke values that anchor it. From the order:
As dicta, the Court would also share the following to the parties, and the Nation as a whole. One of the unique features of our Nation’s Judicial Branch is that our Constitution authorizes the appointment of non-attorney, traditional Mvskoke experts to seats on the Supreme Court. Currently, two of the seven seats on this Court are filled with traditional experts. It is no exaggeration to say that, in every case filed with the Supreme Court, these traditional experts provide insights that book-and-paper law simply would not afford. Our Nation is benefited tremendously by this unique approach to appellate law. In the above-styled case, our Court has attempted to honor both traditional legal concepts, analyzing our statutory and case law precedent, while also honoring Mvskoke history and tradition. At the forefront of our analysis in this case has been a deep consideration of the past. In the time leading up to the signing of the Treaty of 1866, it would be fair to say that many of our ancestors would have been dismayed at the retributive nature of the Treaty of 1866, and at the prospect of entering into such treaty terms. However, they did so. They did so with the fervent hope that such a course would secure a better future for their posterity. From our vantage point today, we see that their decisions, their efforts, and their sacrifice produced their intended results. The Muscogee (Creek) Nation stands as a sovereign entity, and is stronger today because of our ancestors’ decisions, with our Nation’s sovereignty resting in large part on that same Treaty of 1866. It would be both a disrespect for our Court to reject this history, and, perhaps more importantly, a danger to our Nation’s sovereignty to expect that certain advantageous terms of the treaty should be enforced, while certain terms that some may feel are disadvantageous should be ignored. It is clear to this Court that, like our ancestors, many among our citizens today are also dismayed at the prospect of this Court’s Order and Opinion, and would have preferred that the Court had ruled differently. Also like our ancestors, this Court’s fervent hope in this case, and in every case that finds its way to our docket, is that our decision will secure a better future for our Nation, and make clear to all that the Judicial Branch of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation produces just results to all parties, honoring both our tradition and our legal precedent, even if some results may be hard.
Five values inherited from our ancestors and elders anchor Este Mvskokvlke (Mvskoke People), and they anchor this Court as well. Vrakkueckv (respect) calls upon us to honor the rights and dignity of every person who comes before our bench, and to honor the promises our Nation has made, including those memorialized in the Treaty of 1866. Fvtcetv (integrity) and mecvlke (responsibility) call upon us to be fair, honest, and accountable in every decision we render, loyal to the Mvskoke Constitution and laws we have sworn to uphold, and diligent in the work of judging without regard to the prevailing political winds. Eyasketv (humility) and hoporenkv (wisdom) call upon us to remember that the Court is one branch among three co-equals, to be mindful of the well-being of the Nation we serve, and to draw from both scholarly learning and from the knowledge and experience of our elders, whose decisions (made under conditions far harder than ours) resulted in the treaty-defined permanent homeland we enjoy today, and that still shape every aspect of our Nation. These values guided the Court’s analysis in this case, and they will guide every case that comes before us. The Justices of this Court take their oaths seriously, and decide each matter before them without fear or favor, affection or ill-will.
In a government composed of three coequal branches, disagreement among the branches is not only permissible, it is to be expected. Each branch is charged by the Constitution with a distinct role, and the friction that arises when those roles intersect is itself part of the constitutional design. The Court’s responsibility is not to avoid that friction, but to discharge its own duty faithfully when called upon to do so. We lay this Order and Opinion at the doorstep of the political branches of government in the hope that they do the same.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondents’ (1) October 14, 2025, RenewedMotion for Contempt and for Court Enforcement of Order and Judgment and for Order to Show Cause, (2) March 9, 2026, Third Motion for Contempt, for Court Enforcement of Order and Judgment, and for Order to Show Cause, and (3) the March 9, 2026, Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction are hereby DENIED, and that the above-styled appeal is hereby CLOSED.
