US judge halts plan to transfer Oak Flat land for contested Arizona copper mine
PHOENIX (AP) — A U.S. district judge on Friday temporarily halted the federal government's plans to transfer land in eastern Arizona for a massive copper mining project amid protest by Native American groups that consider the area sacred.
Apache Stronghold and its supporters have been fighting for years to stop the transfer of Tonto National Forest land known as Oak Flat to Resolution Copper. Meanwhile, the company has touted the economic benefits for the region and says it's worked with Native American tribes and others to shape the project.
U.S. District Judge Steven Logan said halting the land transfer would merely delay the production of copper and jobs and revenue to Arizona if it's ultimately upheld. On the other hand, he said Apaches would lose legal access to an ancestral, sacred site if the transfer proceeded.
He said the balance of equities 'tips sharply' in favor of Apache Stronghold. He granted an injunction that will be in place until the U.S. Supreme Court resolves an appeal to reconsider a decision from a panel of judges that
refused to block
the land transfer for the mine.
Logan, however, denied Apache Stronghold's request to have the injunction extend beyond the Supreme Court's resolution of the case.
'We are grateful the judge stopped this land grab in its tracks so that the Supreme Court has time to protect Oak Flat from destruction,' Wendsler Nosie Sr. of Apache Stronghold said in a statement Friday.
A statement from Resolution Cooper said the ruling simply maintains the status quo and anticipates the U.S. Supreme Court will decide soon whether to take up the case.
The fight over Oak Flat dates back about 20 years, when legislation proposing the land transfer was first introduced. It failed repeatedly in Congress before being included in a must-pass national defense spending bill in 2014.
President Donald Trump in his first administration released an environmental review that would trigger the land transfer. Former President Joe Biden pulled it back so the federal government could consult further with tribes.
Then, the U.S. Forest Service in April announced it would forge ahead with the land transfer, prompting Apache Stronghold's
emergency appeal
.
Apache Stronghold
sued the U.S. government
in 2021 under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to protect the place tribal members call Chi'chil Bildagoteel, an area dotted with ancient oak groves and traditional plants the Apaches consider essential to their religion.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
3 Supreme Court Cases To Watch in June 2025
The clock is ticking for the U.S. Supreme Court. It's the second week of June and the justices always try to wrap up their term before the calendar hits July. As of this writing, there are still 28 cases pending. Which means that a ton of big decisions will be dropping in the next few weeks. So, what's headed our way? Here are three noteworthy cases that I'm on the lookout for. This case involves a Texas law requiring websites that contain "pornographic material" to verify that the site's users are at least 18 years old. The law's stated goal is to prevent minors from viewing porn. But as the Free Speech Coalition, an adult industry trade group, points out, there is no way to screen out minors online without also vetting the ages of adults, and Texas' intrusive age-verification process unavoidably—and unconstitutionally—burdens the free speech rights of those adults. The state's age-verification requirement "imposes a clear burden," the Free Speech Coalition told the Supreme Court, "forcing adult users to incur severe privacy and security risks—which the statute leaves largely unaddressed—before they can access constitutionally protected speech." The specific legal question here is about what level of judicial review the Texas law should face. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, the age-verification law should be judged under "rational-basis review," which is the most deferential—meaning, it is the most pro-government—form of judicial review. It is no exaggeration to say that when the government encounters rational-basis review, the government stands an excellent chance of winning the case. However, cases involving fundamental rights such as freedom of speech are normally judged under a very different standard. That standard, known as "strict scrutiny," is the most searching form of judicial review. Under strict scrutiny, the government must, first, prove that its law serves a compelling government intent, and, second, prove that the law is the least restrictive means available of advancing that interest. If the government fails to satisfy either of those two prongs, the law is struck down. In other words, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton asks whether the 5th Circuit got it wrong by deferring to the state under rational-basis review when the 5th Circuit should have instead given the state a far more rigorous exam under strict scrutiny. If that sounds like so much legalese, please believe me when I say that the stakes are high. If the First Amendment gets watered down from "strict scrutiny" to "rational-basis" in this case, then the First Amendment will be watered down in many future cases, too. A win for Texas means a loss for freedom of speech. The FBI raided Tina Martin's home in 2017. Still reeling from an exploding flash grenade, she found herself held at gunpoint, unable to reach or comfort her understandably terrified seven-year-old son, who was in another room. To make matters worse, it was a wrong-house raid. The feds were supposed to be at a different house on a different block looking for a different person. They wrecked Martin's home and traumatized her family because the officers never even bothered to make sure they were at the correct location. However, when Martin filed a civil suit seeking damages, the federal court said she was barred from filing suit under the terms of the Federal Tort Claims Act. So, the legal question now before the Supreme Court is whether Martin should have been able to sue. In short, this case is about holding the government accountable for its misdeeds. And make no mistake, the government is actively trying to dodge accountability for the entirely avoidable damage that it caused. As Reason's Billy Binion has noted, the Justice Department's arguments against accountability include the claim, apparently made with a straight face before SCOTUS, that it would have been too much to ask for those federal officers to pause in the driveway and check the address on the mailbox before storming the house. "That sort of decision is filled with policy tradeoffs because checking the house number at the end of the driveway," Assistant to the Solicitor General Frederick Liu told the justices, "means exposing the agents to potential lines of fire from the windows." If you listen to the audio recording of that oral argument, you can hear Justice Neil Gorsuch scoff out the word "really" in apparent disbelief while Liu made the above statement. Gorsuch then asked the government lawyer: "How about making sure you're on the right street? Is that…you know, asking too much?" To require the government to make amends for its misconduct should never be asking too much. A win for Tina Martin in this case is a win for greater government accountability overall. This is the case arising from President Donald Trump's executive order purporting to abolish birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants and temporary legal visitors, such as people holding a work visa. As I've previously argued, Trump's position is unconstitutional under the text, history, and original public meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the Supreme Court rules on the merits of Trump's order, he deserves to lose 9–0. But this case is not exactly about the legality of that presidential decree. Rather, it is about whether federal district judges may issue nationwide injunctions that entirely block such presidential decrees from going into effect while the litigation against them plays out in court. Judging by last month's oral arguments, there is a chance that Trump will secure some kind of win on the nationwide injunctions issue. "Which is not exactly a surprise," as I wrote at the time, because several justices "are already on record as critics of the practice." It is possible that those critical justices will craft a technical ruling that avoids the birthright citizenship debate while at the same time using that debate as the opportunity to reach the result that they already wanted to reach on nationwide injunctions. But it is also possible that the Court will not be able to reach any kind of consensus. For its part, the Trump administration has made the sweeping claim that nationwide injunctions are always unconstitutional. Are there actually five justices on the Court willing to go that far? Maybe. But then again, maybe several justices would prefer to limit the practice without abolishing it outright. We may end up with a fractured opinion that ultimately settles little. The Supreme Court is currently scheduled to release its next batch of opinions on Thursday, June 12. We'll see what we get. One of the upsides of living in upstate New York is that there's a historic drive-in movie theater operating just a short distance away. The Hi-Way Drive-In first opened its gates in 1951 and recently kicked off its 2025 season. Attendees get to enjoy a nice mix of new releases and repertory favorites on the drive-in's four (count 'em!) huge outdoor screens. You're most likely to find me hanging around when there's a double-feature of horror classics on the bill, such as the memorable night a few years back when I caught George Romero's Dawn of the Dead followed by Romero's Day of the Dead. A bucket of fresh popcorn, a cool night breeze, and a horde of shambling zombies. What's not to love? The post 3 Supreme Court Cases To Watch in June 2025 appeared first on
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
LA Superintendent Speaks Out Against Trump Immigration Raids
Superintendent Alberto M. Carvalho addresses a press conference on Friday, Sept. 9, 2022 in Los Angeles, CA. Credit - Irfan Khan—LosI am the leader of the second-largest public school system in the country. I am also a proud American—and once, I was an undocumented immigrant. My journey to citizenship is not just a personal story; it is a story that deeply informs how I lead, how I teach, and how I serve the over 520,000 students who attend Los Angeles Unified schools. This country gave me the opportunity to learn, to grow, and to give back. I became an educator because I believe in the promise of public education. And I became a superintendent to protect it. This week, I cheered as our youngest students culminated from Kindergarten and crossed their first academic finish lines. They were celebrated, beamed with pride, and hugged the teachers who helped them grow. In those moments, I saw the future: bright, diverse, and full of possibility. But in the same week, I also stood beside families gripped with fear. Some of them have lived in our city for decades. Some arrived more recently, escaping violence, persecution, and poverty. All of them have entrusted their children to our care. And now, many of them are facing the unimaginable. In recent months, the federal government has sent immigration agents into our communities—sometimes directly to or near schools. They have questioned parents and, in some cases, spoken with students. Federal immigration agents have driven through neighborhoods with visible tactical gear and vehicles and set up checkpoints outside of workplaces. And this weekend, the National Guard was deployed in our city. To be clear: no preschooler, no first grader, no high school sophomore on their way to class poses any risk to the national security of the United States. And yet, the response we are seeing looks more like a military operation than an immigration process. The result is widespread trauma, fear, and distrust—particularly in our schools, where children should feel safest. We are hearing reports of families hiding in their homes. Students too afraid to come to school. Parents who feel they must choose between a child's education and the risk of detention. These are not hypotheticals. They are the lived experiences of students and families in my district. Los Angeles Unified schools are—and will remain—safe and welcoming spaces for every child, regardless of immigration status. That is not just our commitment, it is the law. The U.S. Supreme Court has held for over four decades that every child, regardless of citizenship, has a constitutional right to a free public education. That means our doors stay open. No child should miss school because of fear. Still, I would be lying if I said fear doesn't exist. And that is precisely why superintendents—and all leaders—must speak up now. School is not just a place to learn reading, math, and science. It is also the place where students receive food, mental health resources, and physical care. Schools are the heart of a community. For many children, it is the only place where they feel truly safe, truly seen. When federal actions create chaos outside our school gates, it is our responsibility to speak out and protect the sanctity of what happens inside them. As a former undocumented immigrant, I know this fear. I have felt it. I have lived with the uncertainty of whether a knock at the door meant separation from everything I loved. I also know what it means to be given a chance—to study, to contribute, to lead. And that makes what's happening in our communities now all the more painful. Because these children, these families, are just like I once was. The question now is: What kind of country do we want to be? I believe we must be a nation that protects children before politics. A nation that recognizes education not as a bargaining chip, but as a birthright. A nation that honors the incredible courage and contributions of immigrant families who are the backbone of our workforce, our schools, and our future. We need federal policies that are humane, lawful, and consistent with our values. That means halting enforcement actions near schools and community centers. It means clear communication with local jurisdictions. It means permanent protections for Dreamers and long-term immigration reform grounded in dignity and opportunity—not fear. Locally, we must continue investing in services that support our students: mental health care, trauma-informed counseling, family legal support, and robust outreach so that families know their rights and know they are not alone. And to the voters reading this: your voice matters. We cannot build a just education system without a just immigration system. The next election, at every level, will help decide whether our schools remain sanctuaries of learning or become battlegrounds for political theater. As superintendent, my charge is clear: I will do everything in my power to make sure every child—documented or not—feels safe, supported, and seen in our schools. Because the future of this country sits in our classrooms every day. And how we treat them will define who we are and what happens next in our nation. We can choose fear. Or we can choose hope. I know what I choose. Do you? Contact us at letters@
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Gilbert: Can Trump ignore the courts? Here's what polling shows Americans think
Almost every day now, a new ruling arrives from the federal courts over President Donald Trump's assertion of powers that have not been claimed or used by presidents before him. Some of those rulings have gone Trump's way. Some have gone against him, leading the president and his deputies to lash out at the judiciary and accuse it of overreaching. How does the American public view the simmering Constitutional conflicts between the executive and judicial branches? It's an evolving story, but the polls suggest that in some important ways the public stands more solidly behind the courts than it does the president. Consider these findings from the most recent nationwide poll by the Marquette Law School, taken last month and released May 21: ∎ Americans overwhelmingly recognize the judiciary's role in determining the legality of a president's actions. Asked, 'If the Supreme Court rules against the president in a case, does the president have the power to ignore that ruling, or is the president required to do as the ruling says?' Eighty-four percent of adults say the president must obey the court's ruling. ∎ Asked if court orders temporarily blocking some of Trump's executive actions are a proper use of judicial authority, almost two-thirds (64%) say, 'Yes.' ∎ Asked about Trump's call for the impeachment of federal judges who have ruled against some of his spending freezes and closures of federal agencies, 70% say these judges should not be impeached for such rulings. ∎ Asked about two high-profile immigration-related rulings — one ordering the administration to facilitate the return of a man erroneously deported to El Salvador and the other requiring due process for those being deported — well over 60% of adults supported the high court's rulings against the Trump Administration. On some of these questions, not surprisingly, there is a split between Republicans and people outside the president's party (independents and Democrats). But on others, even Republicans support the courts. Take the broad question of whether Trump can ignore the Supreme Court. There is notably little partisan difference on this: 78% of Republicans, 78% of independents and 93% of Democrats say the president is required to do as the ruling says. Viewed one way, this is not an earth-shattering result. After all, the Constitution gives the courts the authority to decide on the legality of the president's actions. This is plain old civics. But viewed another way, it is a pretty powerful statement, because it is so uncommon these days to find this much agreement across party lines on any high-profile conflict involving this extremely polarizing president. In other words, the prospect of a president ignoring the courts is unappealing even to Trump's core supporters. Of adults who 'strongly approve' of the job Trump is doing, less than a quarter say the president can ignore a Supreme Court ruling, while 76% say he is required to do as the ruling says. On some other questions, a majority of Republicans take Trump's side in these collisions. But even in those cases, support for Trump's position falls far short of his overall approval rating within his party (almost 90%). Instead, a very sizable minority of self-identified Republicans side with the judiciary. Roughly 40% of Republicans say that federal court orders blocking some of Trump's executive actions are a proper use of judicial authority. In the two immigration cases cited above, about 40% of Republicans support the Supreme Court's rulings against Trump. And almost half of Republicans (46%) oppose the call by Trump and his deputies to impeach federal judges who have ruled against the president. One other thing to keep in mind about public opinion in this area is that the Supreme Court is more popular than the president. The court has a net positive rating, Trump has a net negative rating: 53% of adults nationwide approve of the court's performance, while 46% approve of Trump's performance, according to this recent Marquette poll. The court's approval has risen since 2024, while Trump's has declined from its high point at the beginning of his term in January. The court, which has issued rulings in recent years that have pleased (and outraged) both parties, is also far less polarizing than the president. It gets positive ratings from Republicans, who understand that most of the court's members were appointed by GOP presidents. And while it gets much lower ratings from Democrats, those numbers have been improving as the court has come under fire from Trump. The Supreme Court's approval rating among Democrats rose from 19% in January to 31% in May. The polling doesn't tell us how future rulings, or further attacks by Trump on judges, or a deeper constitutional conflict between the president and the courts might affect the public's views of the judiciary in the months and years ahead. It is possible Trump could drive down support for the court within his own party (the polling finds that Republican support is higher for impeaching judges when Trump personally is advocating it than when it is simply members of Congress doing so, a sign of Trump's personal power to move Republican sentiment). But further attacks by Trump on judges are also likely to increase support for the courts outside the president's political base. In Marquette's past four national surveys dating back to last fall, the polling has consistently shown that a huge majority of Americans recognize the courts' role in refereeing disputes over executive power. And so far, that has not been dented by the president's attacks on the courts' actions, motivations and authority. Craig Gilbert provides Wisconsin political analysis as a fellow with Marquette University Law School's Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education. Prior to the fellowship, Gilbert reported on politics for 35 years at the Journal Sentinel, the last 25 in its Washington Bureau. His column continues that independent reporting tradition and goes through the established Journal Sentinel editing him on Twitter: @Wisvoter. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Trump defying the courts? Here's where the public stands in polling
