The complex and often fraught relationship between the Cherokee Nation and its Freedmen – descendants of formerly enslaved people once owned by tribal members – took a significant turn on Tuesday, March 7, 2006. In a landmark decision, the Cherokee Nation’s Judicial Appeals Tribunal, the tribe’s highest court, ruled 2-1 that Cherokee Freedmen retain full tribal citizenship rights under the Cherokee Nation’s 1975 constitution. This ruling affirmed that Freedmen are legally entitled to vote and participate fully in the tribe’s governance, a right that had been challenged and debated for years. The decision hinged on the interpretation of the 1975 constitution and its implications for Cherokee Nation membership.
The crux of the matter revolved around the interpretation of the Cherokee Nation’s 1975 constitution. The two justices in the majority, Tracy Leeds and Darrell Dowty, meticulously examined the document’s language, particularly its provisions regarding citizenship. They concluded that to exclude a specific group of people from membership – in this case, the Freedmen – the constitution would need to explicitly state such an exclusion with clear and unambiguous language. Justice Dowty emphasized this point, stating, "Exclusion cannot be left to inference by omission or by silence." This principle of legal interpretation underscored the court’s reasoning, emphasizing the need for explicit language when denying rights to a specific group of individuals.
The legal challenge that precipitated this landmark ruling was initiated by Lucy Allen, a Cherokee Freedman. In November 2004, Allen filed a lawsuit against the tribal council, the tribal registrar, and the registration committee. Her grievance stemmed from legislation in place at the time that required her to prove she was "Cherokee by blood" to be recognized as a citizen. Allen argued that this requirement was unconstitutional because it imposed a more restrictive standard for membership than what was outlined in Article III of the 1975 Cherokee Constitution. This "by blood" requirement effectively excluded Freedmen, whose lineage traced back to enslaved people rather than direct Cherokee ancestry. Allen’s lawsuit became a pivotal case that forced the Cherokee Nation to confront its historical obligations and legal definitions of citizenship.
The court, in its ruling, considered the context in which the 1975 Cherokee Constitution was drafted. The justices noted that the drafters of the constitution were well-educated individuals, some of whom were attorneys with a deep understanding of tribal legal history. This background was crucial because it implied that the drafters were aware of the existing legal framework and the historical context surrounding the Freedmen’s status.
Specifically, the court highlighted the 1967 ruling by the U.S. Court of Claims. This federal ruling had determined that Cherokee Freedmen were entitled to receive payments from the Cherokee Nation judgment fund, just like any other Cherokee citizen whose name appeared on the Dawes Commission Rolls. The Dawes Rolls, created at the turn of the 20th century, served as an official record of individuals entitled to tribal membership. Importantly, the Freedmen were included on these rolls. The Judicial Appeals Tribunal cited other federal rulings involving the Freedmen, demonstrating a pattern of legal precedent recognizing their rights as members of the Cherokee Nation. The court’s analysis suggested that the 1975 Constitution was drafted against this backdrop of legal recognition of Freedmen’s rights.
The core of the court’s decision rested on the interpretation of the 1975 Cherokee Constitution’s language. The ruling explicitly stated that the constitution did not specifically exclude Freedmen from continuing membership. The constitutional language stipulated that membership was determined by reference to the Dawes Commission Rolls. Since the Freedmen were included on those rolls, the court reasoned that they should be considered members of the Cherokee Nation under the terms of the constitution. This literal interpretation of the constitution’s language, combined with the historical context and prior legal rulings, formed the basis for the court’s decision.
Justice Dowty further elaborated on his concurrence with Justice Leeds, stating that the legislation requiring proof of "Cherokee by blood" (11 CNCA No. 12) was unconstitutional. He argued that this legislation imposed a more restrictive requirement for membership than the plain language of the 1975 Constitution allowed. Dowty specifically cited the case of Riggs v. Ummerteske, which the court’s ruling reversed. This reversal indicated that the previous legal interpretation of the Freedmen’s status was incorrect and needed to be corrected to align with the constitution’s original intent.
This ruling regarding Cherokees must recognize Freedmen had profound implications for the Cherokee Nation and its relationship with the Freedmen community. It reaffirmed the citizenship rights of thousands of individuals and ensured their ability to participate fully in the tribe’s political and social life. The decision was a victory for the Freedmen, who had long fought for recognition and equal rights within the Cherokee Nation. However, the ruling also sparked controversy among some members of the tribe who believed that citizenship should be based solely on blood quantum, a measure of direct Cherokee ancestry. The debate surrounding the Freedmen’s status continues to this day, highlighting the complex issues of identity, history, and tribal sovereignty.
The decision also raised broader questions about the nature of tribal citizenship and the rights of descendants of formerly enslaved people in other Native American nations. Many tribes throughout the United States, particularly in the Southeast, had a history of owning slaves. The descendants of these enslaved people often faced similar challenges in gaining full recognition and citizenship rights within their respective tribes. The Cherokee Nation’s ruling served as a precedent for other tribes grappling with these complex issues.
In conclusion, the Cherokee Nation Judicial Appeals Tribunal’s 2006 ruling was a watershed moment in the history of the tribe and its relationship with the Freedmen. By affirming the citizenship rights of the Freedmen under the 1975 constitution, the court underscored the importance of upholding legal principles and honoring historical obligations. While the debate surrounding the Freedmen’s status may continue, the court’s decision remains a significant milestone in the ongoing struggle for equality and justice within the Cherokee Nation. The Cherokees must recognize Freedmen.