
Supreme Court rejects bid to stop Arizona copper mine
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a request from some members of the San Carlos Apache Tribe to block a massive proposed copper mine that they say will destroy a holy site in Arizona known as Oak Flat.
A majority of the court denied the petition, but in a dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Neil Gorsuch said he would have granted the petition. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from considering the case.
Gorsuch in his dissent called the decision a 'grave mistake' and said the case 'meets every one of the standards we usually apply when assessing petitions for certiorari: The decision below is highly doubtful as a matter of law, it takes a view of the law at odds with those expressed by other federal courts of appeals, and it is vitally important. Before allowing the government to destroy the Apaches' sacred site, this Court should at least have troubled itself to hear their case.'
Advertisement
Apache Stronghold had called on the Supreme Court to block the project, arguing it would violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which protects their right to worship at the sacred site.
The group, alongside the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, had warned the Resolution Copper mine would transform holy land into a 2-mile-wide and 1,100-foot-deep crater.
The site — known as Oak Flat, or Chi'chil Biłdagoteel in Apache — consists of a vast grove of Emory oaks sacred to the tribe, where some go to pray, hold ceremonies and collect acorns for cooking. It's now part of the Tonto National Forest about 60 miles east of Phoenix, where the Forest Service currently has a campground.
Resolution Copper, a joint venture between Rio Tinto and BHP, has countered that the campground would remain open and accessible for decades, and argued that the case is about the government's right to use national land to pursue national interests — a settled authority that the Supreme Court and other benches have consistently reaffirmed.
The Trump administration has said it intends to complete an environmental impact statement for the mine. Once it's released, the land exchange that accelerates Resolution Copper must happen within 60 days.
The land swap would allow the federal government to transfer thousands of acres of public land in Arizona, including the Oak Flat site, to the mining company, advancing construction of the copper mine. The deal was originally included in the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act and championed by the late Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
Attorneys for Apache Stronghold brought their challenge to the Supreme Court after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to reconsider the case last year. The appeals court in a 6-5 ruling affirmed a lower court's denial of Apache Stronghold's request for a preliminary injunction against the government's transfer of the land to Resolution Copper.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
31 minutes ago
- The Hill
Supreme Court hands big win to fossil fuels, agency power
The Supreme Court this week reshaped how the federal government thinks about fossil fuel infrastructure. While environmental groups frequently describe projects ranging from coal mines to pipelines as 'carbon bombs,' the high court says that may not be the case — finding the projects themselves are not responsible for the upstream or downstream pollution for fuel or other products they simply transport or produce. The high court narrowed the scope of environmental reviews taken by agencies when they determine whether to approve an infrastructure project — and the grounds upon which such reviews can be challenged. The 8-0 ruling is a blow to those fighting to protect the environment and a win for developers and fossil fuel companies, making it more difficult to challenge a project on its climate or environmental grounds, or even to get information about its environmental impacts. 'It is going to grease the wheels for … fossil energy approvals,' said Travis Annatoyn, who was an attorney at the Interior Department during the Biden administration. 'I think it's going to make a difference,' added Annatoyn, who is now with the law firm Arnold & Porter. 'You will see courts take a more hands-off approach to reviewing technical analysis.' Frequently, opponents of projects approved by the federal government sue to get them overturned, arguing that the analysis underlying their approval was insufficient under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). But the justices on Thursday determined that government agencies do not need to consider a project's upstream or downstream impacts, that courts should defer to an agency's judgment about where to draw the line when considering a project's indirect impacts and that courts cannot block agency projects based on the outcome of a potential future project. What that means in practice is that a court cannot rule that an agency's environmental analysis is insufficient because it did not consider whether it will spur more emissions or pollution when fossil fuels are burned. Many energy trade groups and their Republican allies cheered the decision. In a written statement, Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Shelley Moore Capito ( said that the ruling would allow the U.S. to 'move important infrastructure initiatives like pipelines, roads, and energy development swiftly to completion to benefit the communities they serve.' Nathaniel Shoaff, senior attorney at the Sierra Club, said that the ruling means that many emissions impacts will never actually get counted. He gave the example of mining coal on federal lands, saying the vast majority of the coal's climate impacts may never come to light since there's unlikely to be a downstream assessment. 'There is no ongoing NEPA review that I'm aware of at coal fired power plants. If you want to know about the climate impacts of mining coal, the only place to find out about it is during the NEPA process,' Shoaff said. He also noted that this process may shut down access to information for nearby communities. 'This decision is to allow a project to go forward that adds pollution to the air in Black and Brown communities in Louisiana and Texas, and it allows the federal government that's making that decision to stick its head in the sand and ignore those pollution impacts,' Shoaff said, referring to the underlying case the decision comes from, which concerns an oil railway that would make it easier to get oil from Utah to the Gulf Coast. 'People have a right to know when the government's making a decision that's going to impact their lives,' he said. 'It is critical that people understand what impacts the federal government has on their daily lives, and if you give them better information, they will make better choices about who to put in office. My hope is that if you give the federal decision makers better information, they would make better choices,' he added. The ruling comes against the backdrop of an administration that is not eager to consider climate change in its decision making. President Trump has frequently described climate change as a 'hoax' and has downplayed its destructive impacts. His Energy Department recently indicated that it considers environmental impacts of gas export terminals to be outside of its authority, and his Interior Department recently said it planned to dramatically shorten the timeline for environmental reviews of coal, oil and gas projects. Varu Chilakamarri, a former Justice Department lawyer, told The Hill that not only will the ruling likely result in faster approvals, it may also lead to more projects as companies see a smaller chance of getting their permits revoked in court. Chilakamarri said the ruling will give companies 'more comfort that, when an agency makes a decision, that decision will be, given more respect by the courts… even if there is a procedural, error or a lack of explanation by the agency what the court said was that that shouldn't, on its own, allow a court to just vacate the entire authorization.' 'That, in itself, will give companies some comfort they can pursue these processes … that they're not going to have their like permits yanked out from under them,' added Chilakamarri, who is now with the law firm K&L Gates.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
An Australian woman on trial for triple murder testifies over mushroom poisoning
NEWCASTLE, Australia (AP) — The woman accused of murdering three members of her ex-husband's family by serving them poisonous mushrooms has taken the stand at an Australian court on Monday as the highly publicized triple murder trial nears its conclusion. Erin Patterson, 50, is accused of killing her former parents-in-law, Don and Gail Patterson, both 70, and Gail Patterson's sister, Heather Wilkinson, 66, and also of attempting to murder Wilkinson's husband, Ian, 68 after the four consumed a meal at Patterson's home in Victoria state in July 2023. She could face up to 25 years in prison for the attempted murder charge, while murder in the state of Victoria carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Her lawyer, Colin Mandy, previously told the Victorian state Supreme Court during the six-week trial the poisoning was accidental. Patterson's appearance as a defense witness Monday marked the first time the 50-year-old has spoken since pleading not guilty to all charges in May last year. She served meals of beef Wellington, mashed potato and green beans at her home in the rural town of Leongartha on July 29, 2023. All four guests were hospitalized the next day with poisoning from death cap mushrooms, also known as amanita phalloides, that were added to the beef and pastry dish. Ian Wilkinson survived after a liver transplant. Under questioning from Mandy, Patterson revealed personal battles with low self-esteem, shifting spirituality, the complicated birth of her son and growing distance from her estranged husband's family in recent years. 'I had felt for some months that my relationship with the wider Patterson family, and particularly Don and Gail, perhaps had a bit more distance or space put between us,' Patterson said. 'We saw each other less.' Patterson is due back on the witness stand Tuesday as the trial continues. The prosecution completed the presentation of its evidence to a jury of 14 people earlier on Monday afternoon.
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
For deportations, can a US president suspend the 'writ of habeas corpus'?
Question: Can a U.S. President suspend the "writ of habeas corpus"? Answer: The writ of habeas corpus is a safeguard against unlawful detention. It requires the government to justify, under the law, holding someone in custody. The U.S. Constitution mentions only a few rights explicitly in its original text, and habeas corpus is one of them. Historically, this writ was used to try and free people who were imprisoned or detained without judicial process and was a significant reform against the King of England to prevent unlawful or arbitrary imprisonment. The writ allows individuals to petition a court to determine the legality of their detention. In the U.S. today, it is primarily used to challenge the legality or sufficiency of the legal process. So, can a President suspend it? The short answer is probably not — at least not on his own. The longer answer involves constitutional interpretation, historical precedent, and a bit of Civil War history. The Constitution addresses habeas corpus in Article I, Section 9, which lays out limits on Congress, not the President. It reads: 'The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.' The placement in Article I is important, as this article is about the powers and structure of the legislature. The placement suggests that the power to suspend belongs to Congress. That view was confirmed in 1861, during the Civil War when President Abraham Lincoln unilaterally suspended habeas corpus in parts of the country. In response, Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled in Ex parte Merryman that Lincoln's actions were unconstitutional because only Congress had the authority to suspend the writ. Eventually, Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of 1863, giving Lincoln the power by law, which made the issue moot. There have only been four suspensions of the writ of habeas corpus since the Constitution was ratified. The writ was suspended during the Civil War; in parts of South Carolina during Reconstruction; in two provinces of the Philippines during a 1905 insurrection; and in Hawaii after Pearl Harbor. In modern times, no President has tried to suspend habeas corpus without congressional approval. Cerabino on Trump: Three reasons Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' is bad for Florida Even during World Wars, the Cold War, and the aftermath of 9/11, presidents have relied on laws passed by Congress to detain individuals or limit court access, but the writ itself has remained intact. In fact, the Supreme Court has repeatedly reinforced its importance. In Boumediene v. Bush (2008), the High Court ruled that detainees at Guantánamo Bay had a constitutional right to habeas corpus, even though they were held outside the United States. The Court called habeas corpus a 'fundamental precept of liberty.' Nonetheless, there are scholars who argue that the President might have some "emergency authority" in cases where Congress is unable to act. It is possible that this argument could get some traction in the courts today where there has been some movement toward granting the President a greater scope of authority. For now, though, it is likely that any suspension of the writ would require congressional approval based on an invasion or rebellion. Kevin Wagner is a noted constitutional scholar, political science professor, and co-Director of the PolCom Lab at Florida Atlantic University. The answers provided do not necessarily represent the views of the university. If you have a question about how American government and politics work, email him at kwagne15@ or reach him on (X) @kevinwagnerphd. This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Trump wants to deport. But what about due process? | Opinion