[music]

Rebecca Ibarra: Hi everybody, I'm Rebecca Ibarra, in for Tanzina this week, and this is The Takeaway. Last week, the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court ruled unanimously to remove the phrase by blood from the tribe's constitution and laws. The decision is particularly meaningful to descendants of Black people who were once enslaved by the tribe known as Cherokee Freedmen. According to the court, an 1866 treaty signed by the Cherokee Nation affirmed the tribal citizenship rights of Freedmen, but their place within the tribe, including their ability to run for tribal government positions has been questioned and challenged by other Cherokee Nation members over time. Joining us now is Allison Herrera, Indigenous affairs reporter for KOSU. Allison, thanks for coming on The Takeaway.

Allison Herrera: Thanks for having me back.

Rebecca: This recent ruling is connected to a federal court decision from 2017. Can you tell us what was at issue in that case and how did the court rule?

Allison: The 2017 ruling stemmed from-- In 2007, Cherokee Nation voters approved an amendment to the constitution to limit citizenship to Cherokees who could prove they were "by blood". A lawsuit was filed and in 2017, a federal district court judge in DC ruled in favor of the Freedmen. The case was known as Cherokee Nation versus Nash. They said that Freedmen should enjoy full citizenship of the tribal nation, according to an 1866 treaty that they signed. So in 1866, the Cherokee Nation signed a treaty to establish a relationship, again, with the federal government after the civil war.

A lot of people don't know that the Cherokee Nation fought on the side of the Confederacy during the civil war, and so this treaty was to establish a relationship with them. Part of the negotiation said that the tribal nation needed to give Freedmen citizenship. Over time, that has been challenged. In the Cherokee Nation versus Nash case, Marilyn Vann, who was a plaintiff in that case, she had filed for citizenship and wanted to get her citizenship in 2001 and was told, "No, you don't qualify." So she filed a suit against the Cherokee Nation and got her citizenship in 2006. Then that brings us to 2007 when that amendment was made to the constitution.

I think it's really important to know that citizenship laws in the Cherokee Nation are not based on race or blood quantum. Some tribes have that but not the Cherokee Nation. Many feel like requiring blood quantum is a colonialist antiquated way of saying who is and who isn't. Citizenship is based on community, who can claim you? What community are you part of? I tell people to think of it like if you were a citizen of France, it's like that. Your culture, your community, people that you know, people that can claim you. That's a big difference. When the Supreme court or Cherokee Nation struck that by blood language from the constitution, I think they were affirming that.

Rebecca: You've spoken to some descendants of Cherokee Freedmen since the court ruling was announced. How are they reacting to the news?

Allison: I spoke with Marilyn Vann. The striking of this language was in-- like you mentioned in your intro, she is running for a seat on the tribal council and somebody had challenged her candidacy. I spoke with her after this ruling and she was really surprised, she was really happy and she feels first and foremost, she is Cherokee. That's her heritage. I remember when I first interviewed her five years ago, she said, "I knew who my family was, I knew who we were and I felt like I'm a Cherokee just like anybody else." She's looking forward to running for her seat on the tribal council and the election is June 6th and she said, "I'm looking forward to earning the trust of Cherokees and representing them."

Rebecca: Other than being able to say, run for a seat, what will some of the most immediate impacts on the Cherokee Nation Supreme court ruling be within the tribe?

Allison: I'm not sure if there are any other immediate impacts. I think this was the one that was really going to be most impacted. There are freedmen citizens enrolled in the tribe right now and they enjoy the same benefits that other Cherokee Nation citizens have. They're able to vote, they're able to receive healthcare, they're able to receive their vaccine, they're able to enjoy those benefits. I think this striking the by blood language was really-- some feel that this was just the last way to really affirm that there is one type of Cherokee citizen, full stop. There is no you're a Cherokee by blood, you're a descendant. There is one type of Cherokee citizen, full stop. That's what this decision affirms

Rebecca: What have the leaders of the Cherokee Nation said about the court's ruling.

Allison: They're really happy. Attorney General Sara Hill really welcomed Monday's opinion. She remarked on the language that Justice Shawna Baker wrote. She said, "When we signed this treaty, the federal government said that they were going to uphold their end of the trust responsibility and so by us taking out this language, that means that we are upholding our end of the trust responsibility by allowing Freedmen to become citizens." Particularly in that ruling, there was this language that referenced the decision from last summer, if you'll recall, the Supreme court ruled that the Muscogee Creek Nation was never disestablished.

That also had applied to other tribes. In the ruling that Justice Shawna Baker wrote, she said, "155 years after the 1866 treaty, native Cherokees must fully step into the promise they made on the far end of trail of tears." That's a direct quote from Justice Gorsuch's writing from last summer and the Supreme court decision. She also said, "By doing so, the Cherokee Nation as a whole lifts itself into the 21st century and sheds the heavy weight of antebellum and pervasiveness of racism and racial injustice for all. Those were words that were written in the decision on Monday. A lot of people commented on how thoughtful that was.

Rebecca: In 2007, around 75% of Cherokee Nation members approved an amendment that added the by blood language to their constitution. Why was there so much support for that language at the time then?

Allison: I can't really speak to that. What I will say is, since this decision has come down, there are people who feel that the Supreme court and the Attorney General had no right to take that language out of the constitution and they're really upset about it. They feel like this was something that should have been put to the people. This was something that should have been done by a vote. People that are upset about it say that would be like a Justice striking words from the United States constitution. How is that legal? That's not legal. They say that this move is an illegal move on the part of the Cherokee Nation leadership.

They're quite upset about it. I think the other four tribes in Oklahoma, the other four larger tribes, the Seminole, the Chickasaw, the Choctaw and the Muscogee Creek, they all have Freedmen as well. I spoke with an official from Muscogee Creek Nation yesterday about this decision and what implications that has for their tribal nation. He said, "We don't want to just take something out of our constitution. We're not going to go the way of Cherokee Nation. We want to have a discussion about this issue. It's a really important discussion and we really want to talk about it and it's time we talk about it. If we're going to make any decisions about citizenship, we're going to let the people decide."

Rebecca: What is the relationship between Freedmen descendants and other tribal nations in Oklahoma?

Allison: I do know the Seminole Nation, I've spoken and interviewed a Seminole Nation Freedmen descendant, and she's on the tribal council. She can vote, but she claims that she cannot enjoy other citizenship privileges such as healthcare or other things. Other Freedmen descendants don't have citizenship in the tribe at the moment. Freedmen descendants who I've spoken with say that this decision on Monday, they're willing to use this as a platform to put pressure on tribal leadership to do so. Whether or not that works, I don't know, but yes.

Rebecca: Did last summer's racial justice uprising lead the Cherokee Nation to maybe reevaluate the legacy of slavery within the tribe?

Allison: I think that the discussions around racial justice and racial injustice have certainly given the Freedmen a platform to discuss these issues. Also, this is the 100th anniversary of the Tulsa race massacre. I think that that's also another platform where Freedmen feel like they can discuss these issues more openly. Marilyn Vann is the president of this organization called the Descendants of Freedmen of the Five Tribes and they meet every month and they talk about citizenship issues. Certainly last summer, Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr did remove a Confederate monument from the lawn out in front of the Cherokee Nation courthouse in Tahlequah Oklahoma. I think there are steps that the Cherokee Nation are taking to rock in with their history of fighting on the part of the Confederacy and as Justice Shawna Baker wrote, shed the heavy weight of the antebellum [unintelligible 00:10:27] I definitely think that the conversations in the wake of the killing of George Floyd last summer had given the Freedmen a platform to talk about their own racial justice issues.

Rebecca: Allison Herrera is an Indigenous affairs reporter for KOSU. Allison, thank you so much.

Allison: Thank you so much for having me.

Copyright © 2020 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.