@robertbarnes

Yes — but not as an appeal or writ. The Council of Revision did not sit as an appellate court. Under the 1777 Constitution, appeals/correction of errors went to the separate Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, while writs and proceedings ran in the name of “The People of the State of New York.”

The closest and strongest example is the March 21, 1785 Council of Revision veto of a gradual abolition bill. The bill would have gradually freed children born of enslaved persons, but also contained a clause denying Black, mulatto, or mustee persons the legal vote. The Council objected because the bill itself placed those children “in the rank of citizens,” and therefore they could not be stripped of the “privileges of citizens” without violating the “spirit and letter” of the New York Constitution.

That is your key state-citizenship precedent:

the Council treated emancipation / free status as placing persons within the rank of citizens of New York, and treated legislative disfranchisement of that class as constitutionally improper.

It was not “revoked” in the sense of reversing a court order. It was a constitutional veto before enactment. A modern phrasing would be: the Council refused to approve a bill because it would create a class of New York citizens deprived of representative rights.

The Council’s objections are powerful for your DaCK / Sojourner Truth line because they say the Legislature could not create:

“an order of citizens who are to have no legislative or representative share in the government,”

and warned that such disfranchisement would be against the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

There is also a later related voting-rights example: in 1811, the Council vetoed an earlier version of a bill requiring Black or mulatto voters to produce certificates of freedom, but the Legislature quickly passed a similar bill rather than override the veto. Chancellor Kent later objected to special New York City restrictions on Black voters as unequal and dangerous because the precedent could be extended to other classes of citizens.

Best formulation for your materials:

The New York Council of Revision provides an early state-citizenship analogue. In 1785, reviewing a gradual abolition bill, the Council objected that children born of enslaved persons, once placed by law “in the rank of citizens,” were entitled to the privileges of citizens and could not be disfranchised consistently with the spirit and letter of the 1777 Constitution. This was not an appeal or writ, but a Jay-era constitutional veto: a pre-enactment refusal to allow the Legislature to create a caste of New York citizens without representative rights.

That is a strong fit for Sojourner Truth / New York state citizenship / Court of Judicature framing.