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.
Winnipeg Jets Game Days
On Winnipeg Jets game days, hockey writers Mike McIntyre and Ken Wiebe send news, notes and quotes from the morning skate, as well as injury updates and lineup decisions. Arrives a few hours prior to puck drop.
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
Winnipeg Free Press
30 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
The Latest: Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's bid to erase hush money conviction
Federal appellate judges will hear President Donald Trump's quest to erase his criminal conviction on Wednesday — one of the ways he's trying to get last year's hush money verdict overturned. A three-judge panel is set to consider Trump's efforts to get the New York case moved from state court to federal court, where he could then try to have the verdict thrown out on presidential immunity grounds. Billionaire Elon Musk stepped back from his explosive feud with Trump, writing on X that he regrets that some of his posts went 'too far.' An appeals court is allowing Trump tariffs to continue pending court challenges, extending a similar ruling made after another federal court ruled that he overstepped his presidential authority. And the Justice Department says Trump he has the authority to abolish national monuments meant to protect historical and archaeological sites across broad landscapes, including two in California created by his predecessor at the request of Native American tribes. Here's the latest: Trump hails appeals court ruling in favor of his tariffs as a 'great' win for the US Trump commented on the ruling on Wednesday on his social media site, saying, 'A Federal Appeals Court has just ruled that the United States can use TARIFFS to protect itself against other countries. A great and important win for the U.S.,' he wrote. Veterans are divided over the Army's big parade, being held on Trump's birthday Until recently, the Army's long-planned birthday celebration did not include a big parade. Trump's addition, featuring hundreds of military vehicles and aircraft and thousands of soldiers, has divided veterans. Some liken it to the military chest-pounding commonly seen in North Korea, a step toward authoritarianism or a perverse birthday party for Trump. Others see it as a once-in-a-lifetime accounting of the Army's achievements and the military service of millions of soldiers over centuries. The parade is not about Trump, they say, but the public seeing the faces of soldiers when so few Americans serve. The Army expects up to 200,000 people could attend and says the parade will cost an estimated $25 million to $45 million. Trump, speaking at Fort Bragg this week, said Saturday would be 'a big day' and noted 'we want to show off a little bit.' Appeals court lets Trump administration keep collecting tariffs while challenges continue The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit extends a similar ruling it made after another federal court struck down the tariffs May 28, saying Trump had overstepped his authority. The case involves 10% tariffs the president imposed on almost every country in April and bigger ones he imposed and then suspended on countries with which the United States runs trade deficits. It also involves tariffs Trump plastered on imports from China, Canada and Mexico to pressure them to do more to stop the illegal flow of immigrants and synthetic opioids across the U.S. border. In declaring the tariffs, Trump had invoked emergency powers under a 1977 law. But a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled he had exceeded his power. The tariffs upended global trade, paralyzed businesses and spooked financial markets. Elon Musk backs off from feud with Trump, saying he regrets social media posts that 'went too far' Early Wednesday morning, he posted 'I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far.' Musk's break with a president whom he spent hundreds of millions of dollars to elect appeared to put an end to his influence in the White House and prompted concerns about effects on his companies. As a major government contractor, Musk's businesses could be particularly vulnerable to retribution, and Trump has already threatened to cut Musk's contracts. Musk earlier deleted a post in which he claimed without evidence that the government was concealing information about the president's association with infamous pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Meanwhile, other posts that irritated Trump, including ones in which Musk called the spending bill an 'abomination' and claimed credit for Trump's election victory, remained live. On Sunday, Trump told NBC's Kristen Welker that he has no desire to repair their relationship and warned that Musk could face ' serious consequences ' if he tries to help Democrats in upcoming elections. A federal appeals court is set to hear arguments in Trump's bid to erase his hush money conviction Trump's quest to erase his criminal conviction heads to a federal appeals court Wednesday. It's one way he's trying to get last year's hush money verdict overturned. A three-judge panel is set to hear arguments in Trump's long-running fight to get the New York case moved from state court to federal court, where he could then try to have the verdict thrown out on presidential immunity grounds. The Republican is asking the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene after a lower-court judge twice rejected the move. As part of the request, Trump wants the federal appeals court to seize control of the criminal case and then ultimately decide his appeal of the verdict, which is now pending in a state appellate court. The Manhattan district attorney's office, which prosecuted Trump's case, wants it to stay in state court.
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Wisconsin lawsuit seeks to ban Elon Musk from offering $1 million checks to voters
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A government watchdog group in Wisconsin filed a lawsuit Wednesday seeking to prohibit billionaire Elon Musk from ever again offering cash payments to voters in the battleground state like he did in this spring's hotly contested Supreme Court race. Musk handed out $1 million checks to three Wisconsin voters, including two in person just days before the state's April 1 Supreme Court election, in an effort to help elect conservative candidate Brad Schimel. Two weeks before the election, Musk's political action committee, America PAC, offered $100 to voters who signed a petition in opposition to 'activist judges,' or referred someone to sign it. It was all part of more than $20 million that Musk and groups he support spent on the race in an effort to flip majority control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. More than $100 million was spent by both sides, making it the most expensive court race in U.S. history. Musk's preferred candidate lost to Democratic-backed Susan Crawford by 10 percentage points. Her victory cemented the 4-3 liberal majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court until at least 2028. Since that election, Musk announced he will spend less on political campaigns and then feuded publicly with President Donald Trump after exiting his administration. The lawsuit filed Wednesday in state court by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign says that Musk's actions create 'the risk that Wisconsin elections will become an open auction, where votes go to the preferred candidates of the highest bidders and the election outcome is determined by which candidate has a patron willing and able to pay the highest sum to Wisconsin voters.' The lawsuit says that Musk and two groups he funds violated prohibitions on vote bribery and unauthorized lotteries and says his actions were an unlawful conspiracy and public nuisance. The lawsuit asks the court to order that Musk never offer similar payments to voters again. A spokesperson for Musk's America PAC did not immediately return a text message Wednesday seeking comment. There is another Wisconsin Supreme Court election in April. In November 2026, control of the Legislature and the governor's office, as well as the state's eight congressional districts, will be decided. The latest lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign and a pair of voters by the liberal Wisconsin-based Law Forward and the Washington-based Democracy Defenders Fund. It was filed against Musk, his group America PAC that announced the petition and the Musk-funded group United States of America Inc. that made the payments. The court that Crawford joins in August could ultimately hear the new lawsuit. Crawford would almost certainly be asked to recuse from the case, and if she did, the court would be left with a 3-3 split between conservative and liberal justices. The current court, also controlled 4-3 by liberals, declined to hear a similar hastily filed lawsuit brought by Wisconsin's Democratic attorney general seeking to block Musk's handing out of two $1 million checks to voters two days before the election. Two lower courts rejected that lawsuit before the Supreme Court declined to hear it on procedural grounds. Musk's attorneys argued in that case that Musk was exercising his free speech rights with the giveaways and any attempt to restrict that would violate both the Wisconsin and U.S. constitutions. Musk's political action committee used a nearly identical tactic before the presidential election last year, offering to pay $1 million a day to voters in Wisconsin and six other battleground states who signed a petition supporting the First and Second amendments. A judge in Pennsylvania said prosecutors failed to show the effort was an illegal lottery and allowed it to continue through Election Day. A federal lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania in April alleges that Musk and his political action committee failed to pay more than $20,000 for getting people to sign that petition in 2024. America PAC on Monday filed a motion to dismiss. That case is pending.
Winnipeg Free Press
9 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
A federal appeals court is set to hear arguments in Trump's bid to erase his hush money conviction
NEW YORK (AP) — President Donald Trump's quest to erase his criminal conviction heads to a federal appeals court Wednesday. It's one way he's trying to get last year's hush money verdict overturned. A three-judge panel is set to hear arguments in Trump's long-running fight to get the New York case moved from state court to federal court, where he could then try to have the verdict thrown out on presidential immunity grounds. The Republican is asking the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene after a lower-court judge twice rejected the move. As part of the request, Trump wants the federal appeals court to seize control of the criminal case and then ultimately decide his appeal of the verdict, which is now pending in a state appellate court. The 2nd Circuit should 'determine once and for all that this unprecedented criminal prosecution of a former and current President of the United States belongs in federal court,' Trump's lawyers wrote in a court filing. The Manhattan district attorney's office, which prosecuted Trump's case, wants it to stay in state court. Trump's Justice Department — now partly run by his former criminal defense lawyers — backs his bid to move the case to federal court. If Trump loses, he could go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels, whose affair allegations threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump denies her claim and said he did nothing wrong. It was the only one of his four criminal cases to go to trial. Trump's lawyers first sought to move the case to federal court following his March 2023 indictment, arguing that federal officers including former presidents have the right to be tried in federal court for charges arising from 'conduct performed while in office.' Part of the criminal case involved checks he wrote while he was president. They tried again after his conviction, arguing that Trump's historic prosecution violated his constitutional rights and ran afoul of the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling, which was decided about a month after the hush money trial ended. The ruling reins in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricts prosecutors in pointing to official acts as evidence that a president's unofficial actions were illegal. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein denied both requests, ruling in part that Trump's conviction involved his personal life, not his work as president. In a four-page ruling, Hellerstein wrote that nothing about the high court's ruling affected his prior conclusion that hush money payments at issue in Trump's case 'were private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority.' Trump's lawyers argue that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision, and that prosecutors erred by showing jurors evidence that should not have been allowed under the ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how Trump reacted to news coverage of the hush money deal and tweets he sent while president in 2018. Trump's former criminal defense lawyer Todd Blanche is now the deputy U.S. attorney general, the Justice Department's second-in-command. Another of his lawyers, Emil Bove, has a high-ranking Justice Department position. The trial judge, Juan M. Merchan, rejected Trump's requests to throw out the conviction on presidential immunity grounds and sentenced him on Jan. 10 to an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction intact but sparing him any punishment. Appearing by video at his sentencing, Trump called the case a 'political witch hunt,' 'a weaponization of government' and 'an embarrassment to New York.'
