The Supreme Court just rejected a religion case. At least 2 of the justices aren't happy about it
The Supreme Court on Tuesday announced it won't hear a closely tracked religious freedom clash out of Arizona and revealed that at least two of the court's nine justices aren't pleased with the decision.
Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented to the denial of certiorari in the case about mining on sacred land, calling it 'a grave mistake.' His dissent was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Justice Samuel Alito may also have objected to the denial, but he took no part in its consideration.
The Supreme Court's rejection of the case means that a lower court ruling against a group of Native Americans fighting to block a mining project will remain in place.
In his dissent, Gorsuch criticized his colleagues for underrating the significance of the religious freedom questions that were raised.
'Just imagine if the government sought to demolish a historic cathedral on so questionable a chain of legal reasoning. I have no doubt that we would find that case worth our time. Faced with the government's plan to destroy an ancient site of tribal worship, we owe the Apaches no less,' he wrote.
Apache Stronghold v. United States centers on a proposed mining project in the Oak Flat area of Arizona, which is located about 70 miles east of Phoenix.
The Western Apaches use Oak Flat for a variety of sacred ceremonies, including a coming-of-age ritual for young women, as Gorsuch pointed out in his dissent.
In recognition of these ceremonies, the federal government protected portions of Oak Flat from mining for more than a century after taking control of it during 19th century wars.
But then in 2014, Congress cleared the way for the land to be transferred to a private mining company by passing a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that had a last-minute rider about Oak Flat added on.
In 2021, the federal government published an Environmental Impact Statement on Oak Flat, signaling that mining was soon to begin in the area. That's when Apache Stronghold filed a federal religious freedom lawsuit to seek to block the land transfer and mining project. The group argued that destroying Oak Flat would violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The act, which is also known as RFRA, prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening a sincere expression of faith unless there is no better way to fulfill a compelling government goal.
Apache Stronghold argued that the mining project would destroy the Western Apaches' 'spiritual lifeblood,' Gorsuch wrote.
While Apache Stronghold's lawsuit delayed the mining project, it didn't succeed in securing long-term protections for Oak Flat. The group lost at the district and circuit court level, where judges said mining does not represent a substantial burden under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
In September, the group asked the Supreme Court to overturn those decisions and rule that religious freedom law protects against mining on sacred land.
'Oak Flat is our Mt. Sinai — the most sacred place where generations of Apache have come to connect with our Creator, our faith, and our land,' explained Wendsler Nosie Sr. of Apache Stronghold in a press release at the time.
Several religious organizations, as well as Utah Sen. Mike Lee, filed Supreme Court briefs in support of Apache Stronghold in recent months.
In his dissent, Gorsuch criticized the Supreme Court for allowing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling against Apache Stronghold to stand.
He said that, at the very least, it hinged upon a controversial interpretation of how to apply the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in disputes involving government property and, at worst, it treated Native Americans much worse than Americans who are part of other, better-known faiths.
'Before allowing the government to destroy the Apaches' sacred site, this Court should at least have troubled itself to hear their case,' Gorsuch wrote.
As is typical, the justices who voted against hearing Apache Stronghold v. United States did not explain their decision to the public.
As a result of Tuesday's announcement, the federal government is free to move forward with its planned land transfer.
In April, the Trump administration announced that it may release the final Environmental Impact Statement on Oak Flat as soon as next month.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
32 minutes ago
- Axios
Democrats more likely than Republicans to boycott brands, new survey
Why it matters: These murky expectations highlight the complicated environment businesses are currently operating in. What they're saying: "Businesses need to understand how their brand aligns to current issues and the values that matter to their customer base," says Mallory Newall, vice president at Ipsos. "Brands cannot please everyone, and wading into the political fray does not come without risk. It needs to be done in a strategic way. However, there are potential upsides if companies have a clear understanding of who they're talking to and who their customers are. Those who act inauthentically will lose ground in this environment," she added. State of play: There's a disconnect in what consumers say and what they do. 53% of Americans say they are less likely to buy from a company that takes a stance they don't agree with, but only 30% actually do. Between the lines: A company's political or social stances influence Democrats more than Republicans, per the survey. Democrats are more likely to boycott (40%) than Republicans (24%), but they are also 2x more likely to go out of their way to support a brand that aligns with their values. Target is the latest American corporation to grapple with these boycotts, following its retreat from diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Of note: Boycotting is a luxury afforded to those with disposable income, per the survey. Households with incomes of $100k and above are 50% more likely to stop buying from a company they disagree with than those households making $50k and below. What to watch: 67% of Democrats say they are closely tracking how companies respond to pending Supreme Court decisions, compared to 52% of Republicans. There is more appetite across party lines for business commentary on economic issues — like inflation and trade policies — than other policy issues. The bottom line: "The data suggest that Democratic consumers are much more likely to actually follow through on the threat to withhold or reduce spending when they disagree with brands during this era of complete GOP control," says Matt House, managing partner at CLYDE.
Axios
32 minutes ago
- Axios
Supreme Court rejects higher bar for straight workers to prove discrimination
Workers who are white, heterosexual or a member of another "majority group" don't need to provide extra evidence to prove workplace discrimination, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday. The big picture: The case concerned a heterosexual woman who was passed over for a promotion, then demoted. She alleged that she was discriminated against in favor of LGBT employees. A lower court ruled that when a member of a majority group — in this case, someone who's heterosexual — wants to bring a discrimination suit, they have to provide extra evidence to prove that they work for "that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority." No they don't, the Supreme Court said. Federal nondiscrimination law protects every individual under the same standards.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court sides with straight woman in decision that makes it easier to file ‘reverse discrimination' suits
The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a straight woman in Ohio who filed a 'reverse discrimination' lawsuit against her employer when her gay boss declined to promote her. The ruling will make it easier to file such suits in some parts of the country. Despite the politically divisive debate playing out over workplace diversity efforts – a fight that has been fueled by President Donald Trump – a unanimous coalition of conservative and liberal justices were in the majority. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the opinion for the court. 'Our case law thus makes clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group,' Jackson wrote. Marlean Ames started working for Ohio's state government in 2004 and steadily rose through the ranks at the Department of Youth Services. She claims that in 2017, she started reporting to a gay boss and was passed over for a promotion that was offered to another gay woman. Ames is challenging a requirement applied in five appeals courts across the nation that 'majority' Americans raising discrimination claims must demonstrate 'background circumstances' in order to pursue their suit. A plaintiff might meet that requirement, for instance, by providing statistical evidence documenting a pattern of discrimination against members of a majority. Ames couldn't do that and so she lost in the lower courts. An employee who is a member of a minority group does not face that same initial hurdle. The requirement was rooted in the notion that it is unusual for an employer to discriminate against a member of a majority group. But neither federal anti-discrimination law nor Supreme Court precedent speak to creating one set of requirements for a majority employee to file a discrimination suit and a different set for a minority employee. During oral arguments in the case in late February, it was clear Ames had widespread support from the justices. Citing the 'background circumstances' requirement, the Cincinnati-based 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for Ohio. Federal appeals courts based in Denver, St. Louis, Chicago and Washington, DC, applied that same standard, according to court records. At a moment when Trump has politicized workplace diversity efforts, both the court's conservative and liberal justices – as well as the attorneys arguing the case – appeared to agree that the 6th Circuit's analysis was wrong. The case landed on the Supreme Court's docket last fall, about a month before Trump was elected on a pledge to clamp down diversity and inclusion efforts in both the government and the private sector. The administration has taken a number of steps in that direction, including but attempting to cut funding to entities federal officials allege have supported DEI efforts. Many of those actions are being reviewed by courts. But Ames' case was more procedural. Notably, both the Trump and Biden administrations agreed that the 6th Circuit should reconsider its approach. CNN's Hannah Rabinowitz contributed to this report. This story has been updated with additional developments.
