TRUTH IN FOCUS | CONSTITUTIONAL EXPLAINER | October 10, 2026
By Steven Bullcoming Haworth
NORTHERN CHEYENNE RESERVATION, Montana — When people ask whether a Tribal Council can take a particular action, the answer cannot be reduced to whether it has the votes. The Northern Cheyenne Constitution and Bylaws establish a governing Council with significant authority, but that authority operates within written procedures, other constitutional offices, judicial processes and, where applicable, subsequent law and court orders. This article updates our earlier “Part One: Who Has the Power?” report by separating the legal questions that recur in the continuing leadership dispute. [1–2]
Power to govern is not power without procedure
The amended Northern Cheyenne Constitution identifies the Tribal Council as the governing body and sets out its powers in Article IV. The Constitution also addresses elections, removal, referendums, land matters and restrictions on officeholders. It is important to read an asserted Council power with the particular provision governing how and when that power may be exercised. A recorded vote may establish that members voted for a resolution, but the legal effect of the vote can depend on notice, quorum, eligibility of participating members and any judicial order affecting the subject matter. [1]
Under the removal provisions in Constitution Article VII, the grounds, required vote and opportunity for an accused official to respond matter. Whether those requirements were satisfied in a particular proceeding cannot be established by a summary announcement alone. It requires the complaint, sworn allegations if required, service records, hearing procedures, evidence, the final vote and applicable orders. Truth in Focus’s earlier reporting has detailed some of the unresolved September 30 hearing-record questions. [1,3]
The President and Vice President hold different responsibilities
The amended Bylaws Article I, Sections 1–2 sets out duties for the President and Vice President, including the Vice President’s presiding role when the President does not preside. It separately addresses when presidential powers can be delegated or exercised under succession provisions. The fact that a Vice President chaired a Council meeting is therefore not enough, by itself, to determine whether that person was lawfully acting as Tribal President or exercising all presidential powers. Which role was claimed, and under what authorizing provision, is a necessary question. [1]
A related question has arisen from photographs of personnel-leave forms identifying Vice President Ernest Littlemouth Sr. Those forms show date inconsistencies. They do not establish that a particular Council session was held during approved leave, or that taking leave extinguished constitutional authority. To evaluate any overlap, authenticated leave records would have to be matched to the specific meeting date and governing rules. Our accompanying records report explains the documents and their limits. [4]
Meeting procedure, membership and the courts
Bylaws Article V, Sections 1–5 provides for Council meetings and quorum and addresses how extra sessions and resolutions are handled. One of the central disputes has involved which individuals lawfully held Council seats, making judicial rulings, their effective dates and any stays relevant to the procedural record. Press releases, social-media statements and partisan characterizations cannot substitute for the complete text of operative court orders. A decision about the legality of an individual resolution would require identifying the Council membership authorized on that date and applying the controlling law and orders to the documented meeting. [1,5]
Tribal courts and federal agencies have distinct roles. The existence of a Bureau of Indian Affairs letter acknowledging or recognizing a document does not, without reading its actual terms, decide every constitutional question. Similarly, judicial decisions should be described by the relief they actually granted, not assumed to settle unrelated disputes. A responsible account identifies each order’s date, court, parties, operative language and any subsequent appellate action or stay. [5]
Members’ rights to question their government
Constitution Article VIII includes provisions for voter-initiated referendum concerning qualifying Council measures, with its own petition requirements and limitations; it is not interchangeable with the Constitution’s separate removal process. More generally, the written rules allocate responsibilities for Council minutes, financial reporting and official records under Bylaws Article I, Sections 3–4, with ethics provisions in Article VII. Members asking to see notices, resolutions and records are seeking information needed to evaluate whether those rules were followed. [1]
The records question becomes especially important as the November 3, 2026 election approaches. Official guidance about absentee and incarcerated voters must be obtained from the appropriate tribal election authorities under the current election ordinance, not inferred from the Council dispute. Truth in Focus has requested those instructions and will publish verified details as a separate voter-information service when available.
What can be concluded today?
The Council has constitutionally assigned powers, but the valid use of those powers is a matter of the exact provision, the properly constituted body, the record of the action and governing court orders. Claims that every action is automatically valid because the Council voted, or that every action is automatically invalid because a meeting took place elsewhere, go beyond what the documents reviewed here establish. Both official explanations and contrary evidence deserve examination, and each contested decision needs its own source-supported assessment.
Sources and related reporting
[1] Northern Cheyenne Amended Constitution and Bylaws (National Indian Law Library): Constitution Articles IV, VII and VIII; Bylaws Article I, Sections 1–4, Article V, Sections 1–5, and Article VII. Read the original document together with later amendments and applicable tribal law.
[2] Part One: Who Has the Power?, earlier Truth in Focus constitutional explainer, with a dated October update.
[3] Gene Small Removal Hearing: Written Rules and September 30 Proceeding Leave Procedural Questions, Truth in Focus.
[4] Northern Cheyenne Leave Records: What the Dates Show, and What Remains Unverified, Truth in Focus, October 10, 2026.
[5] Northern Cheyenne Removal Record: What C-1 Through C-4 Establish — and What They Still Do Not and Traditional Law and the Constitution, prior Truth in Focus source reviews; readers should consult the underlying court orders for their full terms.
Editorial note: This is a legal-framework explainer, not a legal opinion on the validity of an individual resolution or an endorsement of a party to the current dispute. We welcome verifiable corrections and documentary responses.