Gorsuch, Thomas dissent as Supreme Court declines to take up Apache challenge to copper mine
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to take up a challenge to a land swap enabling mining at a sacred indigenous site, garnering pushback from conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas.
A 2014 law enabled a land transfer between mining company Resolution Copper and the federal government, allowing the miner to take control of a site called Oak Flat in Arizona, which is sacred to the Western Apache.
A group called Apache Stronghold, which says it represents Apaches, other Native peoples, and non-Native allies, appealed the case to the Supreme Court, asking it to reverse a Ninth Circuit decision on religious freedom grounds.
The high court declined to take up the case on Tuesday without explaining its decision. However, Gorsuch issued a dissent, joined by Thomas.
'For centuries, Western Apaches have worshipped at Chí'chil Biłdagoteel, or Oak Flat. They consider the site a sacred and 'direct corridor to the Creator,'' Gorsuch wrote. ' Now, the government and a mining conglomerate want to turn Oak Flat into a massive hole in the ground.'
'Before allowing the government to destroy the Apaches' sacred site, this Court should at least have troubled itself to hear their case,' he added.
Apache Stronghold said in its petition that Oak Flat 'is the site of religious ceremonies that cannot take place elsewhere' including ceremonies for boys entering manhood and girls entering womanhood.
For the court to take up a case, it needs at least four votes in favor of doing so. It's not clear whether any other justices voted with Gorsuch and Thomas, though Samuel Alito recused himself.
In its own filing, Resolution Copper argued that the court should not have take up the case because the land exchange was authorized by Congress and because Apache Stronghold is a nonprofit 'with no religious claim of its own and thus no standing' to bring the case.
Resolution Copper is a joint venture between mining companies Rio Tinto and BHP.
Zach Schonfeld contributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Sound Off: June 7, 2025
Sun Herald readers weigh in on local and national topics. My federal tax forms were filed on Feb. 6, and I was told the refund would take 'a few weeks.' Today is June 6, and still no refund. After repeatedly calling the 800 number, I personally drove to the local IRS office on Old Highway 49 in Gulfport. A security guard made me empty all my pockets and he frisked me. Then he sent me to the desk. The woman at the desk told me I had to call an 800 number to make an appointment. Is this any way to treat honest taxpayers? Orders and actions by the Trump Administration have been thwarted and obstructed by separate U.S. District Court judges around the country seven times in the past week alone. This was a publicly stated goal of left wing organizations during the election when it became clear that Trump would likely be elected. The American people are outraged by the blatant judicial overreach displayed by certain courts, issuing rulings far beyond their constitutional authority. This reckless abuse of power undermines the very foundation of our system of checks and balances and signals that parts of the judiciary have gone completely off the rails. If this continues unchecked, either the Supreme Court must intervene to restore order, or the people themselves will lose all confidence in the judiciary. Without accountability, even legitimate rulings on real crimes will be viewed with skepticism, threatening the rule of law itself. It matters not whether a judge is at the city level or a Supreme Court justice. Their job is to interpret the law and, ultimately, the constitution. Whether you, I or the president breaks the law, we are still subject to it and the ultimate law of the country, the constitution. I was wanting to give some information to the uninformed person who thinks law abiding citizens should be able to get full automatic weapons, since they say criminals have them. Law-abiding citizens already can get fully automatic weapons. They are just heavily regulated, limited in number, and very expensive. Criminals do not have them, and that is why we don't see them used in crimes. I apologize in advance for any harm caused by introducing facts and reality into your liberal echo chamber. The CDC says guns are the number one killer of children. Christians who claim to be pro-life need to really examine their position on gun safety regulations. How much money have you made betting on President Trump to flip-flop on tariffs? And if the answer is nothing, it's time to get on the train. Send your Sound Offs to soundoff@
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Where are the compassionate and moderating voices on Trump's travel ban?
Before he secured the Republican nomination for president in 2016, Donald Trump announced that he would seek 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.' Reaction, including from human rights organizations and fellow Republicans, was swift, and, for the most part, was characterized by astonishment, outrage and condemnation. Marco Rubio posted online, 'I disagree with Donald Trump's latest proposal. His habit of making offensive and outlandish statements will not bring Americans together.' At that time, Trump was an unknown entity in politics, and many believed he would never actually seek to implement the outrageous things he said. Unfortunately, one of Trump's first actions as a newly inaugurated president in January 2017 was to sign an executive order banning nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. This was immediately met with lawsuits and protests. The order was amended two different times in response to court challenges; eventually, a scaled-back version was upheld by the Supreme Court. To their credit, many leaders and members of the president's party were dismayed by this ban at the time. They saw it for what it was — a threat to the religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. They could see it as a clear attack on the pluralism that has long guaranteed that our nation — a nation of immigrants — remains a haven for people seeking to practice their religion according to their conscience while also contributing to society. When candidate Trump first voiced his pledge to prevent Muslims from entering the U.S. in 2015, Utah Governor Herbert spoke out strongly against this idea: 'I am the governor of a state that was settled by religious exiles who withstood persecution after persecution, including an extermination order from another state's governor. In Utah, the First Amendment still matters. That will not change so long as I remain governor.' We remember both the early rhetoric of candidate Trump and the later actions of President Trump well. It was shocking and disorienting to watch his efforts to discriminate against others. It was disheartening to watch a political party descend into unchristian and uncharitable legalese, all with the aim to exclude others based solely on their faith or nationality. Mormon Women for Ethical Government was born in response to these efforts. At the outset, MWEG's founders envisioned a small group of women working together through peaceful, faithful, nonpartisan and proactive ways to counteract the unbelievable turn the government was making. But these women were not alone in their desire to take action. They were quickly joined by thousands of other women of faith who were ready to work for a more peaceful, just and ethical world. Over time, MWEG has become a strong voice in advocating for compassionate and moderating forces in government. The organization continues to attract women who want to proactively and peacefully support systems rooted in constitutional principles and the rule of law. We now have women in all 50 states engaging in the political arena as informed and principled citizens. Though much has changed since the formation of MWEG eight years ago, immigration remains a central and divisive issue. Immigrants, including refugees and asylum seekers, have been victims of dehumanizing language and unfair stereotyping. The current administration has invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport people without due process. It has detained students without cause, deported a man by mistake and refused a Supreme Court order to facilitate his return, attempted to end birthright citizenship, revoked student visas, ended temporary protected status for many, and suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). This week, President Trump signed another proclamation that bans citizens from 12 countries from entering the U.S. In comparison to eight years ago, the large-scale response has been muted or even resigned. As the world has changed and political rhetoric has become ever more extreme, have we changed with it? Do things that were once the source of personal outrage and deep concern still concern us? Has our once-strong commitment to love our neighbor as ourself weakened? And, if we cannot love them, are we at least as committed to maintaining their claim to Constitutional protections as we were eight years ago? As an organization, MWEG is committed to amplifying the best aspects of our Christian faith. That faith is rooted in a gospel of generosity. We are also committed to preserving the Constitution that, among other things, protects our ability, as members of a minority faith, to participate freely in civic life, to express our views and to practice our religion without fear of repercussions. Actions like this ban seem directed at a particular group, but they actually undermine the constitutional rights that protect all of us from government overreach. As citizens of a free nation, we can and should speak out when we see those rights being violated. In 2017, the threat was widely recognized by leaders and citizens from both parties. It is worth contemplating why this is no longer the case.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump has rejected police reform. States and localities must take the lead.
Five years after a Minneapolis police officer brutally murdered a handcuffed George Floyd by kneeling on his neck for over nine minutes, prompting worldwide protests against wrongful police killings of Black people, the Trump administration has taken a giant step back from police reform. The Justice Department announced in May that it is abandoning agreements reached with police departments in Minneapolis and Louisville, Ky., mandating reforms designed to reduce killings, brutality and other police misconduct. The Justice Department is conducting a review to determine if it should drop similar agreements with about a dozen other police departments. On top of this, the Justice Department will end civil rights investigations of alleged criminal conduct by the Louisiana State Police and police departments in Memphis, Mount Vernon, N.Y., Oklahoma City, Phoenix and Trenton, N.J. Thankfully, Minneapolis officials announced that they will abide by their agreement, known as a consent decree, reached with the Justice Department in the closing days of the Biden presidency. But it is absurd to depend on police departments to police themselves. The federal government has a duty to protect people from police who engage in criminal conduct. The dangerous pullback by the Justice Department is likely to result in more wrongful deaths at the hands of police — particularly of Black people and members of other minority groups. A nationwide count by the Washington Post of deadly shootings by police from 2015 through 2024 found that Black people 'are killed by police at more than twice the rate' of white people in America. The number of non-Hispanic whites killed by police was 4,657, compared with 2,484 Black people. Because only 14 percent of the American population is Black, the number of people killed by police annually averaged 6.1 per million of the Black population, compared with 2.5 per million of the white population. There are, of course, times when police must use deadly force to prevent the killing of others. But this wasn't the case with Floyd and many others killed by police. Floyd, who was unarmed, was only suspected of using a counterfeit $20 bill to buy cigarettes. As a Black man like Floyd, I have experienced the unfair and harsh treatment some officers give to people who look like us. I've been stopped on the road and detained in front of my home by police several times when doing nothing wrong. I've been ordered out of my home and car to lay on the ground, had guns pointed at me, been handcuffed and been threatened with arrest. I don't think I would be treated this way were it not for the color of my skin. Most police officers never beat, shoot or kill anyone. They risk their lives to keep us safe and deserve our gratitude. But it is naive to believe that officers can do no wrong, that we live in a colorblind society or that there is no such thing as systemic racism. In the wake of the Trump administration's rejection of its duty to protect us all from police misconduct, the job of implementing needed reforms must go to state and local governments that oversee police agencies. Here are some actions they should take. Increase police funding to implement reforms: After Floyd's murder, some progressives adopted the slogan 'defund the police.' That was a mistake. Police departments need more federal, state and local government funding to better train and pay officers and to put more officers on the street to do police work the right way. More funding will make it less likely that police engage in the kind of unlawful violence that killed Floyd and too many others. Polling by CBS in 2022 found only 9 percent of Americans believed providing less funding for police would help prevent violent crime, while 49 percent said more funding for police would do so. A Gallup poll the same year found 89 percent of Americans believed minor or major changes were needed to improve policing — including 87 percent of whites, 90 percent of Hispanics and 95 percent of Blacks. Focus on preventing crime, not just crime response: Putting more cops on the street and having them get out of their patrol cars to build relationships with people and businesses helps officers gather intelligence about bad actors. The increased presence of officers in communities will prevent crime. This is an expensive but necessary step if we are serious about police reform. Independently investigate alleged misconduct: Rather than relying on police departments to police themselves and investigate officers accused of misconduct, states and localities should set up independent commissions to objectively conduct such investigations. Reward good cops and punish bad ones: Officers who report misconduct by colleagues should be rewarded financially and with promotions, while officers acting improperly should be disciplined, including with firing and prosecution when they commit crimes. A national database of fired officers should be established so bad cops can't get hired by departments in other localities. Increase police pay and education requirements: Raising police pay will make it easier to attract well-qualified job applicants. Departments should require every new hire to have at least two years of college and eventually a four-year degree. A 2017 national survey found that about 52 percent of officers had two-year college degrees, about 30 percent had four-year degrees and about 5 percent had graduate degrees. Governing Magazine reported in 2023 that 'research suggests that officers with college degrees generate fewer substantiated complaints and … are less likely to shoot or kill members of the public.' Increase screening of police recruits and veteran officers: Use psychological tests and in-depth interviews to identify those unsuitable for police work because they are too eager to use violence — especially if they feel threatened — or too prejudiced against certain groups. Increase officer training: Better training will make officers better able to do their jobs without resorting to deadly force. This should include training in psychology and mental health to assist officers in dealing with people experiencing a mental health crisis. Alternatively, set up a division of mental health police officers to address incidents where drugs or mental issues are the source of bad conduct. 'One in five fatal police shooting victims may have been experiencing a mental health crisis … at the time of their death,' a federal study of 633 deadly police shootings concluded. These recommendations are all common sense and promote justice and public safety. With the Trump administration abandoning its responsibility to investigate police misconduct and demand reforms, the job passes to state and local governments. Doing so would be a fitting tribute to George Floyd and the many others wrongfully killed by police. A. Scott Bolden is an attorney, former New York state prosecutor, NewsNation contributor and former chair of the Washington, D.C. Democratic Party. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
