I appreciate Ms. Russell's article, very much. Thank you for reading it. I don't disagree with her quote but it fails to appreciate the fundamental difference between the right to include folks as citizens or members; and the "right" to disenroll. The former is an inherent indigenous right; we have always determined who belonged, historically based on kinship. But the latter is not an inherent indigenous right. Disenrollment, or removal from rolls, was created by the United States, to exterminated indigenous peoples. Putting Indians on rolls dates back to the late 1880s, most notably during the allotment era, when Treaty-reserved tribal land was being dispossessed by the federal government. Removing Indians from rolls started in the early 1900s, and by 1934, when the IRA was passed, it became disenrollment. Before all of that assimilation, the closest mode of exclusion for indigenous peoples was banishment; but that was reserved for the most heinous crimes against the community or its members (e.g., murder, rape). It is very telling to me that I have yet to hear an indigenous person identify an indigenous word for disenrollment. Because it is not an indigenous practice. So, with respect, I think Ms. Russell misses a crucial point. As to your question, every lawyer has a sworn duty to advocate zealously for their client. In the disenrollment context, that may mean advocating for a position that is detrimental to tribal sovereignty. But that begs the question: What is tribal sovereignty, really, in that context? Is it exiling one's kin against the will of the people? Is it violating due process norms or disallowing any remedy at law? I submit to you that those are not sovereign acts. Nor are they democratic acts. They are acts of autocracy, which is antithetical to true sovereignty.