Developing story. This article is part of an ongoing Truth in Focus review of the Northern Cheyenne governmental dispute. It addresses the relationship between traditional authority and the written constitutional system. Separate reporting will examine judicial recusal, court structure, public-record access, and other unresolved questions.
A recent comment shared with Truth in Focus by Northern Cheyenne community member Jen Redfox Spang captures an important part of the debate surrounding traditional government: “The chiefs implemented traditional law. It needs to be respected.”
That statement raises a legitimate question, but answering it requires looking beyond a simple argument between tradition and the written Constitution. Northern Cheyenne government today sits at the intersection of several different sources of authority: traditional Cheyenne government, the constitutional structure adopted during the Indian Reorganization Act era, later tribal laws and constitutional amendments, the Tribal Court system, and the Nation’s legal relationship with the federal government.
Traditional Cheyenne government existed long before the modern Constitution. Historical and cultural sources describe a governmental system associated with Sweet Medicine that included a Council of Forty-Four chiefs, military societies, sacred responsibilities, and established rules for Cheyenne society. That system was not created by the federal government and did not begin with the Indian Reorganization Act.
The modern written constitutional government came later. The Northern Cheyenne Constitution was originally approved in 1935 after ratification by tribal voters under Section 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. It was later amended, including major governmental-reform and separation-of-powers amendments ratified in 1996. The present Constitution divides tribal governmental power among legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
That history matters because the traditional system and the IRA-era constitutional system were not simply the same governmental structure under different names. Traditional leadership retained cultural, political, and spiritual importance, while the written Constitution assigned formal governmental powers to elected officials, the Tribal Council, and the tribal courts. The current dispute has exposed how difficult that overlap becomes when traditional authority and constitutional authority appear to point in different directions.
The conflict became especially significant on September 10, 2025, when Traditional Chiefs issued a written declaration seeking to remove eight elected Tribal Council representatives and other officials and employees. Supporters of the declaration argued that the Chiefs possessed inherent authority under traditional law. The affected council representatives challenged the action in Tribal Court.
The Constitution itself is specific about removal from elected office. Article VII provides that an officer or council member may be removed for failure to perform assigned duties or gross neglect by a two-thirds vote of the Tribal Council after being given a fair opportunity to be heard. It also requires complaints against the President, a council member, or an officer of the Council to be written and sworn.
In August 2026, Tribal Judge Frans A. Andersson, who had assumed jurisdiction after an appellate ruling recused Chief Judge Curtis Elkshoulder and remanded the matter to a different judge, ruled that the Chiefs’ declaration did not lawfully remove the eight elected representatives under the existing constitutional structure. Because the council members had not been legally removed, the court concluded that the later election could not lawfully fill seats that had never become vacant.
The dispute did not end there. In September 2026, the Northern Cheyenne Appellate Court again reinforced the authority of the original elected council members and rejected the contention that traditional societies, customs, or traditional law independently supplied governmental power that displaced the Constitution’s formal structure.
Those rulings answer an important legal question under the present constitutional framework, but they do not erase the larger historical question. Traditional Cheyenne government predates the IRA Constitution, and the Council of Forty-Four and other traditional institutions were historically central to Cheyenne governance. The present Constitution, however, does not expressly place the Traditional Chiefs within the three branches of government or expressly grant them an independent power to remove elected officials.
The Constitution also contains an important nuance. Article IV states that rights and powers historically vested in the Northern Cheyenne Tribe but not expressly mentioned in the Constitution are not abridged by that article. At the same time, it provides that such powers may be exercised by the people through appropriate bylaws and constitutional amendments. Article XI separately states that one branch or entity may not exercise power belonging to another branch unless expressly authorized by the Constitution, tribal law, or applicable federal law.
The federal relationship adds another layer. Northern Cheyenne is a sovereign tribal nation, and tribal governmental authority does not simply come from the United States. At the same time, Congress has broad authority in federal Indian affairs, federal law can affect tribal governmental powers, and provisions of the Northern Cheyenne Constitution itself require Department of the Interior review or approval for certain actions.
That should not be confused with the idea that the Bureau of Indian Affairs normally runs Northern Cheyenne government or decides every internal dispute. In September 2025, the Northern Cheyenne Agency initially indicated that the BIA would continue recognizing officials elected under the Tribe’s Constitution. Days later, however, the agency withdrew those recognition letters and cited its policy of noninterference in intra-tribal governance disputes, placing responsibility for resolving the conflict back on the Nation’s own institutions.
This helps explain why the dispute has been so confusing. Traditional authority is real. The written Constitution is real. Federal Indian law affects the broader legal framework. The BIA has responsibilities in particular areas but declined to act as the final referee in this internal governmental dispute. Tribal courts have therefore been asked to decide what governmental authority exists under the written Constitution.
The central question is not whether traditional Cheyenne law deserves respect. It is whether the present Constitution adequately defines the governmental authority of traditional institutions. There is an important difference between saying that Traditional Chiefs historically held governmental authority within Cheyenne society and saying that the current written Constitution grants Traditional Chiefs a particular legal power over elected offices. The first is a historical and cultural proposition. The second must be supported by the Constitution, valid tribal law, and applicable court decisions.
That may point to a broader constitutional question for the Northern Cheyenne people themselves: if Traditional Chiefs are intended to have a defined governmental role within the modern constitutional system, should that role be written expressly into the Constitution or other governing law? That could include questions about consultation, protection of traditional law, dispute resolution, discipline or removal of officials, and the relationship between the Council of Forty-Four tradition and elected government.
Those decisions belong to the Northern Cheyenne Nation. Truth in Focus is not attempting to decide which political faction should prevail. The purpose of this reporting is to distinguish documented history, written law, court decisions, federal authority, and traditional law so readers can understand why the dispute has produced competing claims of authority.
Truth in Focus has sought records and clarification from Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council officials concerning aspects of the current governmental dispute. As of publication, those requests have not produced the records or on-the-record response needed to answer several remaining questions. If responsive documents or statements are received, this article will be updated.
The current controversy is therefore not simply a fight over personalities or offices. It exposes a deeper question: how does a traditional Indigenous system of government coexist with an IRA-era written constitutional structure when the relationship between the two has never been fully defined?
To be continued: Truth in Focus will separately examine judicial recusal and conflicts, including the rules governing when judges must step aside, the July 2026 appellate recusal order, and questions readers have raised about relationships among people involved in tribal proceedings. Those issues will be reported only after the applicable law and relevant relationships are documented.
Sources
Northern Cheyenne Tribe — Constitution and Bylaws. Articles IV, VII, X and XI; certificate of adoption and 1996 amendments.
Read the Constitution and Bylaws
Northern Cheyenne Tribe — Revised Law and Order Code. Adopted June 2, 2025; effective October 1, 2025.
Read the Revised Law and Order Code
Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian — Northern Cheyenne Nation / Sweet Medicine materials. Background on the Council of Forty-Four chiefs, military societies, and traditional Cheyenne governmental organization.
Read the Smithsonian material
U.S. Department of the Interior, Indian Affairs — Tribal government resources. Background on inherent tribal self-government, IRA constitutions, and the continuing use of traditional systems.
Read Indian Affairs FAQs
Montana Free Press — August 19, 2026. Reporting on Judge Frans Andersson’s ruling reinstating the eight elected council members and voiding the replacement election.
Read the report
Buffalo’s Fire — Northern Cheyenne constitutional-crisis reporting and document timeline. Reporting and linked records concerning the September 10, 2025 Chiefs’ Declaration, BIA correspondence, appellate recusal order, and subsequent court rulings.
Read the timeline
Read the BIA and court-document report
Truth in Focus will update this article if additional primary records or responses from the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council are received.
Byline: Steven Bullcoming Haworth
Collaborator: Corry Bullcoming Haworth
Copyright © 2026 Steven Bullcoming Haworth & Corry Bullcoming Haworth. All rights reserved.