US appeals court puts the brakes on contested land transfer for Arizona copper mine
The transfer was scheduled for Tuesday. But a panel of judges with the 9th U.S. District Court of Appeals issued a temporary injunction late Monday in response to last-minute appeals by a Native American tribe and environmentalists.
The land includes Oak Flat — an area used for centuries for religious ceremonies, prayer and gathering of medicinal plants by the San Carlos Apache people and other Native American tribes.
The fight over Oak Flat has spanned two decades, with the latest legal wrangling centered on a required environmental review that was released by the U.S. Forest Service earlier this summer and an appraisal of the land to be mined by Resolution Copper about 60 miles (96 kilometers) east of Phoenix.
Before the land exchange can happen, the plaintiffs argued that the federal government must prepare a comprehensive review that covers 'every aspect of the planned mine and all related infrastructure.' They said the government failed to consider the potential for a dam breach, pipeline failure and if there was an emergency plan for a tailings storage area.
As for the appraisal, they said it doesn't account for the value of the copper deposits that are at least 5,000 feet (1,500 meters) below the surface.
The appeals court plans to hear arguments on the merits of the case later this year.
Opponents of the mine consider the court action a victory, saying prayers are paying off.
'This injunction comes in a desperate time of asking for miracles, all over the country and all over the world,' Wendsler Nosie Sr. of the group Apache Stronghold said in a statement shared on social media.
Nosie, a former tribal chairman, described the land and water at Oak Flat as precious.
Apache Stronghold, the San Carlos Apache Tribe and other plaintiffs having been fighting for years to save what tribal members call Chi'chil Bildagoteel. The area is dotted with oak groves and traditional plants the Apaches consider essential to their religion.
'We will continue praying that the court understands the grave injustice of trading our sacred grounds to foreign mining companies that seek to destroy Chí'chil Biłdagoteel to extract copper that will be exported overseas,' Tribal Chairman Terry Rambler said in statement.
Resolution Copper — a subsidiary of international mining giants Rio Tinto and BHP — estimates the mine will generate $1 billion a year for Arizona's economy and create thousands of jobs. The project has support in the nearby community of Superior.
Resolution Copper has said the project underwent an extensive review by the U.S. Forest Service that has included consultation with tribes that have ancestral ties to the land.
'The collaborative process has directly led to major changes to the mining plan to preserve and reduce potential impacts on tribal, social, environmental and cultural interests,' the company stated.
The Forest Service has argued in court filings that it has no discretion because the land exchange was mandated by Congress when language was included in a must-pass national defense spending bill that was signed into law in 2014 by then-President Barack Obama.
There have been unsuccessful legislative attempts in the years since to withdraw the Oak Flat area from mining activity.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
43 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Trump admin plans to screen social media accounts for 'anti-American' views before allowing applicants into US
The Trump administration's immigration services is going to begin scanning potential visa and green card applicants' social media accounts for 'anti-Americanism.' President Donald Trump has made toughening up U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services a key part of his agenda on immigration. USCIS said officers will now consider whether an applicant for benefits, such as a visa or green card, 'endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused' anti-American, terrorist or antisemitic views. 'America´s benefits should not be given to those who despise the country and promote anti-American ideologies,' Matthew Tragesser, USCIS spokesman, said in a statement. 'Immigration benefits-including to live and work in the United States-remain a privilege, not a right.' It isn't specified what constitutes anti-Americanism and it isn't clear how and when the directive would be applied. 'The message is that the U.S. and immigration agencies are going to be less tolerant of anti-Americanism or antisemitism when making immigration decisions,' Elizabeth Jacobs, director of regulatory affairs and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for immigration restrictions, said on Tuesday. Jacobs said the government is being more explicit in the kind of behaviors and practices officers should consider, but emphasized that discretion is still in place. 'The agency cannot tell officers that they have to deny - just to consider it as a negative discretion,' she said. Critics worry the policy update will allow for more subjective views of what is considered anti-American and allow an officer's personal bias to cloud his or her judgment. 'For me, the really big story is they are opening the door for stereotypes and prejudice and implicit bias to take the wheel in these decisions. That´s really worrisome,' said Jane Lilly Lopez, associate professor of sociology at Brigham Young University. The policy changes follow others recently implemented since the start of the Trump administration including social media vetting and the most recent addition of assessing applicants seeking naturalization for `good moral character'. That will not only consider 'not simply the absence of misconduct' but also factor the applicant´s positive attributes and contributions. 'It means you are going to just do a whole lot more work to provide evidence that you meet our standards,' Lopez said. Experts disagree on the constitutionality of the policy involving people who are not U.S. citizens and their freedom of speech. Jacobs, of the Center for Immigration Studies, said First Amendment rights do not extend to people outside the U.S. or who are not U.S. citizens. Ruby Robinson, senior managing attorney with the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, believes the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution protects all people in the United States, regardless of their immigration status, against government encroachment. 'A lot of this administration´s activities infringe on constitutional rights and do need to be resolved, ultimately, in courts,' Robinson added. Attorneys are advising clients to adjust their expectations. 'People need to understand that we have a different system today and a lot more things that apply to U.S. citizens are not going to apply to somebody who´s trying to enter the United States,' said Jaime Diez, an immigration attorney based in Brownsville, Texas. Jonathan Grode, managing partner of Green and Spiegel immigration law firm, said the policy update was not unexpected considering how the Trump administration approaches immigration. 'This is what was elected. They´re allowed to interpret the rules the way they want,' Grode said. 'The policy always to them is to shrink the strike zone. The law is still the same.' USCIS has made several moves as Trump has returned to office to ally with the president's agenda. They have implemented new restrictions in compliance with Trump's executive orders to suspend processing of requests for legal permanent residency for immigrants granted refugee or asylum status, CBS News reports. The Department of Homeland Security said the green card processing pause was necessary to comply with two executive actions issued by the president. 'USCIS is placing a temporary pause on finalizing certain Adjustment of Status applications pending the completion of additional screening and vetting to identify potential fraud, public safety, or national security concerns, in alignment with Mr. Trump's executive actions,' the statement said. According to a presidential proclamation cited by officials, Donald Trump has instructed federal agencies to 'vet and screen to the maximum degree possible all aliens who intend to be admitted, enter, or are already inside the United States.' The administration's tightening of restrictions on immigration policies and procedures are the latest attempts to tackle concerns of national security and fraud. The move comes after Trump questioned the immigration vetting procedures under the Biden administration. USCIS also announced earlier this month that they have updated immigration policy to restrict visa eligibility for transgender women seeking to compete in women's sports. Under the policy update, USCIS will consider 'the fact that a male athlete has been competing against women' as a negative factor when evaluating visa petitions in categories such as O-1A for extraordinary ability, EB-1 and EB-2 green cards for highly skilled workers, and national interest waivers. 'USCIS is closing the loophole for foreign male athletes whose only chance at winning elite sports is to change their gender identity and leverage their biological advantages against women,' said USCIS spokesperson Matthew Tragesser. 'It's a matter of safety, fairness, respect, and truth that only female athletes receive a visa to come to the U.S. to participate in women's sports.' set to host the Olympics in Los Angeles in 2028.
Telegraph
43 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour's rewilding plans risk surge in wildfires
Labour's rewilding plans risk sparking a surge in wildfires across Britain, gamekeepers have warned. The Government is proposing to ban winter burning – a traditional upland management technique that reduces the amount of fuel for potential fires – from more than half of all peatland in England. It is claimed the changes will help to 're-wet' Britain's peat bogs, reduce the risk of wildfires and cut carbon emissions. Environmentalists want to preserve peat bogs because they soak up vasts quantities of carbon. But landowners and gamekeepers have warned that, far from protecting the environment, the burning restrictions will instead leave Britain's moors and heaths at the mercy of wildfires that will be 'too large to fight'. Winter burns create firebreaks in upland areas by forming strips where there is less flammable foliage, thereby limiting the speed at which wildfires can spread. But in 2021, the burns were banned from areas of 'deep peat' – where it extends for 40cm or deeper – in conservation areas, totalling 222,000 hectares of land. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is now consulting on plans to extend the burning restrictions to 368,000 hectares of peat by lowering the threshold for 'deep peat' to 30cm. The department argues that wetter peat will reduce the chance of wildfires. But gamekeepers have warned the changes would leave swathes of the countryside vulnerable. Richard Bailey, a gamekeeper and co-ordinator of the Peak District Moorland Group, told The Telegraph the plans risked turning upland areas into a 'massive tinderbox'. Andrew Gilruth, chief executive of the Moorland Association, said: 'This is our worst ever year for wildfires. Britain is burning because of the religion of rewilding. 'It is obvious to everyone bar Natural England that, with climate change making vegetation tinder-dry, increasing this fuel load through rewilding is a really stupid idea. It make for bigger, more intense blazes which can move at frightening speed.' 'I think the whole thing is very concerning – not just from a loss-of-habitat point of view, but also putting firefighters and land managers in real danger from the inevitable wildfires. 'The whole thing is becoming a massive tinderbox and a bomb that is going off. At the moment, re-wetting is increasing the fuel level on the moors and that is a real concern. Prescribed burning will not stop wildfires, but it reduces the length of flames and allows fires to be contained quicker.' Other proposed changes would remove an exemption to the restrictions that allowed burns to continue on land 'inaccessible' to mowing and cutting equipment, either because it was too steep or too rocky. Proposals reveal 'staggering lack of knowledge' Defra said in its consultation that burns should be a 'last resort', despite G7 leaders having backed 'controlled burning' as a means of preventing wildfires in June. Donald Trump also issued an executive order that month reducing restrictions on 'prescribed fires' for 'common-sense wildfire prevention'. Adrian Blackmore, the director of shooting at the Countryside Alliance, said Defra's plans to restrict burns – which remove the top layer of heather without damaging the roots or peat underneath – were 'staggering'. 'They are showing a staggering lack of understanding or knowledge,' he said. 'Burns reduce the fire load, encourage young growth for the birds to eat and encourage the growth of sphagnum moss, which is the peat-forming moss. 'So if you don't remove the canopy, you can't encourage sphagnum moss, because it's not going to grow underneath it. And sphagnum moss is the be-all and end-all, making moors wetter.' In recent years, there has been a series of large wildfires in upland areas where winter burns were restricted – including the Saddleworth Moor blaze in 2018, where wildfires had been limited to once every two decades. This summer, large wildfires have broken out on Langdale Moor, in North Yorkshire, and Marsden Moor, in West Yorkshire. Scotland's largest ever wildfires have also taken place in the Cairngorms. Gamekeepers in Scotland have warned that they will no longer help to put out moorland wildfires if restrictions on peat burns are introduced. From January next year, gamekeepers would have to measure the depth of the peat before applying for licences to conduct 'muirburns'. Craig Hepburn, a member of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association's youth committee, said: 'As people, it goes against the grain for us to turn our backs on anyone but, if Government is going to tie us in knots when we are trying to help, why should folk keep putting their lives at risk?' A spokesman for Defra said: 'Our peatlands are home to Britain's most precious wildlife, while also storing carbon and reducing flooding risk. 'With 13 per cent of the world's blanket bog in the UK, we've consulted on ways to ensure these rare habitats are better protected. We will set out our response in due course.' John Clarke, of the National Gamekeepers' Association, said the Defra plans would 'spell disaster'. 'Many areas of the uplands are inaccessible by tractors and other vehicles, meaning that cutting or mowing of vegetation is nigh-on impossible, and controlled burning is the only option,' he said. 'This summer we have experienced a large number of wildfires up and down the country; this year so far has in fact seen the most wildfires on record. These wildfires come at a huge cost not only to our ground nesting red listed birds, but also to the public purse. 'The notion of increasing the restrictions on where burning can take place will spell disaster and will only increase incidents of wildfire in the future.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
9/11 victims' fund architect slams changes to New Hampshire abuse settlement program
An attorney who helped design and implement the 9/11 victims' compensation fund says New Hampshire lawmakers have eroded the fairness of a settlement program for those who were abused at the state's youth detention center. Deborah Greenspan, who served as deputy special master of the fund created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, recently submitted an affidavit in a class-action lawsuit seeking to block changes to New Hampshire's out-of-court settlement fund for abuse victims. She's among those expected to testify Wednesday at a hearing on the state's request to dismiss the case and other matters. More than 1,300 people have sued the state since 2020 alleging that they were physically or sexually abused as children while in state custody, mostly at the Sununu Youth Services Center in Manchester. Most of them put their lawsuits on hold after lawmakers created a settlement fund in 2022 that was pitched as a 'victim-centered' and 'trauma-informed' alternative to litigation run by a neutral administrator appointed by the state Supreme Court. But the Republican-led Legislature changed that process through last-minute additions to the state budget Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed in June. The amended law gives the governor authority to hire and fire the fund's administrator and gives the attorney general — also a political appointee — veto power over settlement awards. That stands in stark contrast to other victim compensation funds, said Greenspan, who currently serves as a court-appointed special master for lawsuits related to lead-tainted water in Flint, Michigan. She said it 'strains credulity' to believe that anyone would file a claim knowing that 'the persons ultimately deciding the claim were those responsible for the claimant's injuries.' 'Such a construct would go beyond the appearance of impropriety and create a clear conflict of interest, undermining the fairness and legitimacy of the settlement process," she wrote. Ayotte and Attorney General John Formella responded by asking a judge to bar Greenspan's testimony, saying she offered 'policy preferences masquerading as expert opinions' without explaining the principles beyond her conclusions. 'Her affidavit is instead a series of non sequiturs that move from her experience to her conclusions without any of the necessary connective tissue,' they wrote. The defendants argue that the law still requires the administrator to be 'an independent, neutral attorney' and point out that the same appointment process is used for the state's judges. They said giving the attorney general the authority to accept or reject settlements is necessary to give the public a voice and ensure that the responsibility for spending millions of dollars in public funds rests with the executive branch. As of June 30, nearly 2,000 people had filed claims with the settlement fund, which caps payouts at $2.5 million. A total of 386 had been settled, with an average award of $545,000. One of the claimants says he was awarded $1.5 million award in late July, but the state hasn't finalized it yet, leaving him worried that Formella will veto it. 'I feel like the state has tricked us,' he said in an interview this week. 'We've had the rug pulled right out from underneath us.' The Associated Press does not name those who say they were sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly. The claimant, now 39, said the two years he spent at the facility as a teenager were the hardest times of his life. 'I lost my childhood. I lost things that I can't get back,' he said. 'I was broken.' Though the settlement process was overwhelming and scary at times, the assistant administrator who heard his case was kind and understanding, he said. That meeting alone was enough to lift a huge burden, he said. 'I was treated with a lot of love,' he said. 'I felt really appreciated as a victim and like I was speaking to somebody who would listen and believe my story.' Separate from the fund, the state has settled two lawsuits by agreeing to pay victims $10 million and $4.5 million. Only one lawsuit has gone to trial, resulting in a $38 million verdict, though the state is trying to slash it to $475,000. The state has also brought criminal charges against former workers, with two convictions and two mistrials so far. The 39-year-old claimant who fears his award offer will be retracted said he doesn't know if he could face testifying at a public trial. 'It's basically allowing the same people who hurt us to hurt us all over again,' he said.
