Northern Cheyenne court denies Gene Small request for en banc review

Tribal Appellate Court denies en banc review in Northern Cheyenne leadership dispute

The Northern Cheyenne Appellate Court has issued a ruling that further distances former President Gene Small from the tribal executive seat he has contested since his removal last year. In a decision released today, Judges Michael Monson and Adrian Miller denied a legal request from Small for an en banc review, effectively upholding a previous court order that granted constitutional authority to the tribe’s council.

Today, I met with President Small and the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council to discuss key priorities and strengthen our partnership. pic.twitter.com/U3bTtYOe3Q

— https://x.com/RepTroyDowning/status/2052492671483007122

This ruling follows a period of intense political instability within the Northern Cheyenne leadership. According to reporting from buffalosfire.com, the legal battle centers on the legitimacy of the council and Small’s status as president. The dispute traces back to 2025, when Small ousted members of the tribal council. However, those ousted members eventually returned to power after a judge ruled their removal had been unlawful.

The current tension reached a breaking point on September 30, 2026, when the council officially removed Small from his role as tribal president. Small has refused to recognize the validity of that removal, leading to the current legal impasse. By denying the request for a three-judge en banc review, the appellate court has closed a significant legal avenue for Small’s challenge to the council’s authority.

Dual elections create split in Lame Deer

The legal deadlock is playing out in real-time through a fractured electoral process occurring today. While the Northern Cheyenne are holding a general election for the tribal council, the political divide has physically manifested in the tribe’s headquarters in Lame Deer, Montana.

Northern Cheyenne court denies Gene Small request for en banc review

Small and his supporters are conducting a separate, parallel election at the headquarters, creating a direct confrontation between two different visions of tribal governance. This split election highlights the deep-seated disagreement over which body holds the legitimate mandate to lead the community and manage tribal affairs.

The stakes of this constitutional battle extend beyond individual leadership roles. The outcome of these simultaneous elections and the ongoing court decisions will determine the stability of the tribal government and its ability to execute administrative functions. For the residents of the Northern Cheyenne reservation, the question of who holds constitutional authority is no longer just a legal abstraction, but a practical reality affecting the direction of their community’s governance.

As the results of today’s conflicting elections emerge, the tribal court’s decision to uphold the council’s authority remains the primary legal benchmark for the legitimacy of the executive branch.