Supreme Court refuses to hear Oak Flat case, clearing a roadblock for huge copper mine
The U.S. Supreme Court has turned down a request by grassroots group Apache Stronghold to hear a longstanding lawsuit over the fate of a huge copper mine at Oak Flat, east of Phoenix.
The decision, handed down May 27, removes a major roadblock for Resolution Copper to move forward with the project, which would leave a gaping crater on land held sacred by Indigenous peoples.
The high court has held hearings since December to debate if it would take the case, brought by opponents of the mine after losing a series of lower-court rulings.
Justice Neil Gorsuch disagreed with the decision, with Justice Clarence Thomas in agreement.
"Before allowing the government to destroy the Apaches' sacred site, this Court should at least have troubled itself to hear their case," Gorsuch said. "The Court's decision to shuffle this case off our docket without a full airing is a grievous mistake — one with consequences that will reverberate for generations."
Wendsler Nosie, head of Apache Stronghold, said the group would "never stop fighting" to save Oak Flat from obliteration.
"While this decision is a heavy blow, this struggle is far from over." Nosie called on Congress to reverse the 2014 vote to approve the land exchange.
Victoria Peacey, Resolution's general manager, said she was pleased with the decision.
'The Resolution Copper mine is vital to securing America's energy future, infrastructure needs, and national defense with a domestic supply of copper and other critical minerals," Peacey said.
Oak Flat, or Chi'chil Biłdagoteel, "the place where the Emory oak grows," is at the heart of a struggle now entering its third decade.
In December 2014, Congress authorized the U.S. Forest Service to trade the 2,200-acre site, currently a campground about 60 miles east of Phoenix, for parcels of environmentally sensitive private land owned by Resolution Copper, a subsidiary of British-Australian mining companies Rio Tinto and BHP.
To obtain the copper ore, Resolution will use a method known as block cave mining, in which tunnels are drilled beneath the ore body, and then collapsed, leaving the ore to be moved to a crushing facility. Eventually, the ground will subside, leaving behind a crater about 1,000 feet deep and nearly 2 miles across where Oak Flat and its religious and environmental significance stands.
The U.S. Forest Service published the final environmental impact statement and draft decision for the copper mine and land swap five days before the end of the Trump administration in January 2021. That set off a 60-day clock during which the land deal could have been finalized.
Apache Stronghold filed its lawsuit in January 2021 in federal court to stop the land swap, citing religious rights guarantees under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Becket Law, a religious freedom nonprofit law firm, accepted the case and, along with a group of private attorneys and law professors, has represented Apache Stronghold, which includes Apache and other Native peoples and their allies.
The Biden administration rescinded the environmental impact statement in March 2021 for further consultation with tribes. That consultation is ongoing.
Resolution was granted permission to join the lawsuit in 2023.
In 2024, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Apache Stronghold in a narrow 6-5 decision. That fall, the group appealed to the Supreme Court.
In April, the Forest Service issued a 60-day notice that it would publish a new environmental impact statement June 16, which would reopen the 60-day process.
Apache Stronghold asked the U.S. Federal Court in Phoenix to put a stop to the proceedings while the Supreme Court decided if it would take the case. That halt was issued May 9. Judge Steven P. Logan said that the stoppage would be in effect until one day after the high court turned Apache Stronghold down, whether to take the case or decide against the group.
Peacey, the Resolution executive, said the project has "significant" community support and that it could become one of the largest copper mines in America, adding $1 billion a year to Arizona's economy, and creating thousands of local jobs in Arizona's Copper Triangle.
"More than a decade of extensive consultation and collaboration with Native American Tribes and local communities has directly led to major changes to the mining plan to preserve and reduce potential impacts on Tribal, social, and cultural interests, and this ongoing dialogue will continue to shape the project."
The San Carlos Apache Tribe, which filed its own lawsuit in 2021 to halt the land exchange on environmental concerns, also recently asked the federal court to stop the Forest Service's move to issue a new document until its litigation is complete.
This is a developing story and will be updated throughout the day.
Debra Krol reports on Indigenous communities at the confluence of climate, culture and commerce in Arizona and the Intermountain West. Reach Krol at debra.krol@azcentral.com. Follow her on X @debkrol.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Supreme Court refuses Apache Stronghold Oak Flat copper mine case
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Aid leaders urge Houthis to release humanitarian workers detained in Yemen
The heads of 10 major international charities and United Nations agencies have demanded the release of aid workers held captive by Yemen's Houthi rebels. In a statement released to mark the one-year anniversary of the kidnapping of 23 UN staff and five humanitarian workers in northern Yemen, they said nothing could justify the ordeal the hostages had been through. 'They were doing their jobs, helping people in desperate need: people without food, shelter, or adequate health care,' they said in the letter, seen by The Telegraph. The Iran-backed group's action, they added, have had a 'chilling effect across the international community' and 'undermined mediation efforts for lasting peace' in Yemen. Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary-General, said: 'The UN and its humanitarian partners should never be targeted, arrested or detained while carrying out their mandates for the benefit of the people they serve.' He strongly condemned the death of a World Food Programme (WFP) staff member in detention in February. The worker, who has only been identified by his first name, Ahmed, had delivered food aid with the organisation since 2017. It is unclear how he died. 'The Houthi de facto authorities have yet to provide an explanation for this deplorable tragedy,' he said. Hisham al-Hakimi, 44, Save the Children International's safety and security director in Yemen, also died in Houthi custody in October 2024. The organisation described his death as 'unexplained' and called for an investigation. Ten years of civil war have devastated Yemen and triggered one of the world's worst humanitarian crises. More 150,000 people have died and 24 million people – around 60 per cent of the population – are in need of humanitarian assistance. One in two children under the age of five is suffering from malnutrition. In January, the UN said it would pause all operations in the northern governorate of Saada, a stronghold of the Houthi movement, citing safety concerns. It is also actively engaging with senior Houthi officials to try to secure the release of all its detained employees, it added. Human rights groups have also accused the Houthi movement of routinely kidnapping, torturing and arbitrarily detaining hundreds of civilians. Last June, when it arrested the aid workers, the group claimed to have dismantled an 'American-Israeli spy network' – a claim the UN rejected as baseless. Protect yourself and your family by learning more about Global Health Security Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court backs Catholic Charities' push to object to state taxes on religious grounds
The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for a Catholic Charities chapter in Wisconsin to secure an exemption from certain state taxes in a decision that could expand the type of religious entities entitled to tax breaks under the First Amendment's protections for religion. It was the latest in a series of decisions from the Supreme Court in recent years that have sided with religious groups on everything from public funding for sectarian schools to allowing coaches to offer private prayers on the field after high school football games. 'It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain 'neutrality between religion and religion,'' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for a unanimous court. 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one. When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny,' she added. The Catholic Charities Bureau and four affiliate organizations had claimed that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment's religious protections by denying exemptions from the state's unemployment taxes. Churches already receive that exemption and so the question for the justices was, in essence, whether religiously affiliated entities that don't perform traditionally religious functions – such as services – should also qualify. The bureau describes itself as the 'social ministry arm of the Diocese of Superior' of Wisconsin and says that it carries out a 'wide variety of ministries for the elderly, the disabled, the poor,' and others. Wisconsin had argued that Catholic Charities had been participating in its unemployment insurance program without complaint since 1971. Forty-seven states and the federal government include exemptions from unemployment taxes for religious organizations similar to Wisconsin's, suggesting the court's decision could have an impact beyond the Badger State. The Trump administration sided with Catholic Charities, and it was concerned a broad ruling might affect the similar federal law. The Justice Department told the court it interprets federal law to exempt Catholic Charities and similar groups. Justice Clarence Thomas, a member of the court's conservative wing, wrote separately to argue in favor of a doctrine of 'church autonomy' that would further insulate religious institutions from taxes and government regulations. Thomas argued that the state court went too far by looking into how Catholic Charities was structured. 'The First Amendment's guarantee of church autonomy gives religious institutions the right to define their internal governance structures without state interference,' Thomas wrote. 'Perhaps the most important feature of today's ruling is that there was not a majority to take up the issue Justice Thomas wrote separately to underscore—whether regulations governing the tax-exempt status of religious organizations implicates, in Thomas's words, 'the First Amendment's guarantee of church autonomy,'' said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center. 'By deciding this case (unanimously) on narrower grounds, the Court saves the much more fraught question of the extent to which the First Amendment does require church autonomy—and what that would mean for all kinds of local, state, and federal regulations—for a future case.' The majority concluded that Wisconsin's law, as interpreted by the state's top court, discriminated between religions because the groups performing the charity work did not proselytize – even though the group's faith bars practitioners from doing so. 'A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination,' Sotomayor wrote for the court. 'Wisconsin's exemption, as interpreted by its Supreme Court, thus grants a denominational preference by explicitly differentiating between religions based on theological practices,' she wrote. Though technical, the case raised fundamental questions about the ability of courts to look behind the pulpit to assess the religiosity of certain organizations. Chief Justice John Roberts pressed the attorney representing Catholic Charities in March by asking whether a vegetarian restaurant might be entitled to an exemption from state taxes in the group's view if its owners claimed they were following a religious tenet against eating meat. Along those same lines, a question lurking behind the case was how it might apply to religiously affiliated hospitals. Approximately 787,000 employees work for six multibillion-dollar Catholic-affiliated health care systems, according to the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which filed a brief supporting the state. The Service Employees International Union, which also backs the state, estimated that more than a million workers are employed by religiously affiliated organizations. The conservative justices on the Supreme Court have in recent years blurred the line that once clearly separated church from state in a series of rulings siding with religious entities. They have done so in part on the theory that some government efforts intended to comply with the First Amendment's establishment clause have been overbroad and discriminated against religion. The court has expanded the circumstances under which taxpayer money may fund religious schools, for instance, it allowed a public high school football coach to pray on the 50-yard line and ruled that Boston could not block a Christian group from raising a flag at City Hall. But in this case, liberal Justice Elena Kagan signaled during the argument that she, too, had concerns with the idea that courts might take it upon themselves to second guess what sorts of activities might count as religious. It was clear in March that a majority of the justices were alarmed by the decision from the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which concluded that the work Catholic Charities performed was 'wholly' secular. 'Such services can be provided by organizations of either religious or secular motivations, and the services provided would not differ in any sense,' the majority wrote. In a dissent, two Wisconsin justices said that the court's decision 'looks through a seemingly Protestant lens to deem works of charity worthy of the exemption only if accompanied by proselytizing – a combination forbidden by Catholicism, Judaism, and many other religions.' By choosing which religions may benefit from the break, the dissent said, the state court's interpretation violated the First Amendment. Catholic Charities argued that its employees would continue to have unemployment coverage but that it would be provided by a church-affiliated entity rather than the state. The group's opponents say employees in other workplaces may not be so lucky and have noted that the state cannot guarantee that those plans will pay out when employees lose their jobs. This story has been updated with additional details.
CBS News
41 minutes ago
- CBS News
Jury deliberations in Harvey Weinstein's retrial in New York begin
Harvey Weinstein's sex crimes retrial has reached its final stage. The jury began deliberations, but not without drama in the courtroom beforehand. is now in the hands of a jury in New York City. One of the jurors who had been listening to the trial for weeks got sick just as deliberations were set to begin. Juror 8 didn't show up Thursday morning, and was replaced by an alternate juror to begin deliberations. CBS News New York's Lisa Rozner reports Juror 8 was somebody Weinstein's defense wanted as part of the trial and therefore the deliberations, so much so that Weinstein's legal team initially threatened to move for a mistrial if the judge didn't give Juror 8 more time to potentially show up. Eventually, the judge dismissed that as a possibility, saying that even though the defense "chose" the juror, "the purpose of an alternate juror is for this very reason." The judge then began instructing the jurors on deliberations just before 11 a.m. Juror 8 was female, as is her replacement, Alternate Juror 1. Weinstein addresses court after jury starts deliberations Deliberations began at 11:30 a.m. After the jury left, Weinstein asked to address the court. "Your honor I'd like to thank your team, court officers, security, all the people who were just and fair with me and with the exception of the captain - I'm kidding," Weinstein said. "Just seriously, I've been treated incredibly fairly. The court officers, the court clerks, everybody I just want to thank from the bottom of my heart. I appreciate you all." The judge then thanked Weinstein for his comments. Closing arguments in Harvey Weinstein retrial The defense requested a mistrial Wednesday morning, claiming the Manhattan District Attorney's office forced some witnesses to testify, but the judge turned down the request. The jury was brought in around 10:30 a.m. to hear the rest of the prosecution's closing arguments. The defense spoke for nearly three hours Tuesday in its closing statements. The prosecution kept it serious, portraying Weinstein as a sexual predator, while the defense was animated, cracking jokes that incited laughter from the jury box and telling them Weinstein was the true victim. The 73-year-old's lawyer, Arthur Aidala, told the jury Tuesday, "I know this is going to sound crazy, but he's the one getting abused." He alleged the accusers used Weinstein for fame and fortune and that everything was consensual. The prosecution called those remarks offensive and said, "He had enormous power and control over the entertainment industry for over 30 years, he decided who was in and who was out," adding Weinstein "was not used to the word 'no.'" What is Weinstein accused of in this case? Two accusers -- former production assistant Miriam Haley and actress Jessica Mann -- testified during the retrial and at Weinstein's first trial in 2020. Haley alleged Weinstein forcibly performed oral sex on her in July 2006, and Mann alleged he raped her at at New York hotel in 2023. Former model Kaja Sokola alleged Weinstein forcibly performed oral sex on her in 2006 when she was 19 years old. She was not part of the original trial. Weinstein is charged with two counts of first-degree criminal sex act and one count of third-degree rape. Both carry a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison. He has pleaded not guilty. Weinstein's 2020 conviction was overturned last year when the state's highest court ruled the judge should not have allowed testimony from other accusers who were not part of the criminal charges. He was then held at Rikers Island for several months leading up to his retrial. Weinstein was also convicted in 2022 of sexual assault in Los Angeles and was sentenced to 16 years in prison.
