Here is the opinion in United States v. Lynn.
Briefs:
tribal membership
Kirsty Gover on Membership and Self-Identification under UNDRIP
Kirsty Gover has posted: “Membership and Self-identification in The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: a Commentary on Article 33” on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
This chapter addresses two broad themes within the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIPS): self-identification and membership, as addressed in international jurisprudence on UNDRIP Article 33. The article protects the rights of Indigenous Peoples to ‘determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions’. It should be read with Article 9, which protects the right of individuals ‘to belong to an indigenous community or nation’. Together the articles protect both individual and collective self-identification, but UNDRIP does not specify what should happen when groups and individuals disagree on a person’s membership status. Recent applications of the UNDRIP in international forums link ‘self-identification’ to collective self-determination, in a way that prioritises the authority of group decisions on membership. This is a positive step that promises a more nuanced and jurisdictional approach to identity issues, one that supports the authority of Indigenous law and can potentially bring international human rights law closer to a fully realised appreciation of Indigenous-State legal pluralism. This chapter outlines the history of Article 33, discusses its recent application and interpretation and explains its potential impact on membership disputes.
Muscogee (Creek) Nation SCT Denies Enforcement and Contempt Motions Citing Separation of Powers and Closes Freedmen Citizenship Case
Here is the order in Citizenship Board of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Grayson and Kennedy:
Prior post here.
Update in Creek Freedmen Suit Seeking Citizenship — Contempt Motions
Here are post-decision materials in Citizenship Board of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Grayson and Kennedy:
Doc.+53+Respondents’+Motion+for+Contempt+and+for+Court+Enforcement+of+Order+and+Judgment+08272025_.pdfDownload
Doc.+54,+Order+Denying+Respondents’+Motion+for+Contempt+and+for+Enforcement+of+Order+and+Judgment,+08282025.pdfDownload
Doc.+55,+Respondents’+Renewed+Motion+for+Contempt+and+for+Court+Enforcement+of+Order+and+Judgment+and+for+Order+to+Show+Cause,+10142025.pdfDownload
Doc.+57,+Appellant+Citizenship+Board+of+MCN’s+Response+To+Respondents’+Renewed+Motion,+10272025.pdfDownload
Doc.+58,+Order+Taking+Respondent’s+Renewed+Motion+for+Contempt+Under+Consideration,+and+Directing+Appellant+to+Submit+Monthly+Status+Report,+11132025.pdfDownload
Doc.+67,+Respondents’+Third+Motion+for+Contempt,+for+Court+Enforcement+of+Order+and+Judment+and+for+Order+to+Show+Cause,+03092026.pdfDownload
Doc.+68,+Respondents’+Motion+for+Temporary+Restraining+Order+and+Preliminary+Injunction,+03092026.pdfDownload
Muscogee (Creek) Nation Supreme Court Holds Creek Freedmen & Descendants Entitled to Same Rights as Other Creek Citizens
Sault Tribe Appellate Court Rejects Challenges to Election that Opened Membership Rolls
Here is the opinion in McRorie v. Election Committee (Sault Tribe of Chippewa App. Ct.):
Tribal SCT Briefs in Citizenship Board of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Grayson
MCN District Court Orders Enrollment Office to Reconsider Denials of Freedmen Descendants’ Citizenship Applications
Here is the order in Grayson v. Citizenship Board (MCN Dist. Ct.):
mcn dist. ct., order and opinion on appeal from citizenship board of the muscogee (creek) nation denial of creek freedmen citizenship application, 09272023.pdfDownload
Gabe Galanda on Indigenous Kinship Renewal and Relational Sovereignty
Gabriel Galanda has posted “In the Spirit of Vine Deloria, Jr.: Indigenous Kinship Renewal and Relational Sovereignty” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
This essay heeds Vine Deloria, Jr.’s inspiring call for the renewal of Indigenous kinship tradition and counsels for the development of relational sovereignty. The first part deconstructs the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1978 landmark decision in Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez to expose its distinctly economic underpinnings. That case exemplifies a steady erosion of Indigenous reciprocity, and concurrent rise of tribal per-capitalism and neocolonialism. The second part suggests five actions that Native nations could take to restore inclusionary, duty-based kinship systems and rules. First, Native nations should replace blood quantum with alternative citizenship criteria rooted in traditional kinship principles. Second, Native nations should renew kinship terminology to eliminate neocolonial identifiers. Third, Native nations should outlaw disenrollment and bring their relatives home. Fourth, Native nations should lift enrollment moratoria and welcome their lost generations. Lastly, Native nations should—after pausing to understand the colonial legacy of federally sanctioned monetary distributions to tribal individuals—cease per capita payments and reinvest in community revitalization. By drawing on Indigenous traditions of reciprocity and shared destiny, Native nations should reconcile their peoples’ modern individual rights with their customary obligations and duties to one another. Through these strategies, Native nations can engage in a new paradigm of relational sovereignty, whereby Indigenous human existence is exalted and protected over individual power and profit.
California Federal Court Rejects San Pascual Membership Challenges
Here are the materials in Alegre v. United States (S.D. Cal.):
193 Interior Reply in Support of 183
212 DCT Order Granting Interior’s Motion
Prior post here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.