Can someone please clarify what the ruling suggests that has just come from the BIA?

I would interpret the decision not to approve the 2003 Amendment suggests that the BIA does not wish to give validity to the blatant violation of the 1866 treaty. I realize that there is technical language thrown in the letter and in the many ways it can be interpreted. If that is not accurate, can someone please clarify what the implications are?

In spite of the "tough talk" from the tribal leaders, does that mean that the expelled-then-"temporarily" un-expelled-Freedmen are now full citizens of their nation once again? Is that a premature assumption? Does the language in the letter by Artman of the BIA, suggest that there is recognition that the Treaty of 1866 has been violated and that such violation is not being sanctioned?

If that is not completely accurate, can someone provide clarification?

Thanks.

-Angela-