The Supreme Court said no, but this legal battle lives on
The justices said on May 27 that they wouldn't hear a religious freedom case aimed at preventing federal officials from transferring Oak Flat, a site that's sacred to the Western Apache, to Resolution Copper.
At first, that announcement seemed like the end of the road for the mining project's opponents.
But then on Monday, they secured a small but potentially significant victory in a federal court in Arizona in separate but related lawsuits on the future of Oak Flat.
According to Inside Climate News, one of the ongoing lawsuits was brought by the San Carlos Apache Tribe and argues that the land transfer would violate a treaty between the tribe and the government, as well as environmental and historic preservation laws.
The other lawsuit was brought by a group of environmental activists, who claim the government has failed to fully study the environmental impact of the proposed mining project.
In Monday's ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Dominic W. Lanza said the government can't transfer the land until at least 60 days after the publication of the Environmental Impact Statement on the mining project and promised to revisit the transfer during that 60-day period to consider implementing an injunction that would block it.
The battle over Oak Flat dates back to 2014, when Congress removed the federal protections that were preventing mining in the area, as the Deseret News previously reported.
That legal shift made it possible for the land to be transferred to a private company, although seven years passed with no major developments along those lines.
But then, in 2021, the federal government published an Environmental Impact Statement on Oak Flat, signaling that mining was soon to begin. That's when a group of Native Americans filed a religion lawsuit to block the land transfer, arguing that destroying Oak Flat would violate their religious freedom rights.
While the lawsuit, called Apache Stronghold v. United States, delayed the mining project, it didn't restore land protections. Apache Stronghold lost at the district and circuit court level, where judges said destroying Oak Flat would not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
With its May 27 announcement, the Supreme Court allowed those decisions to remain in place.
Justice Neil Gorsuch criticized the court's refusal to take up the case in a strongly worded dissent, which was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.
'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,' Gorsuch wrote.
Although the Supreme Court's announcement brought an end to the religious freedom case, it did not end the battle.
Two other lawsuits aimed at blocking the mining are ongoing, as Inside Climate News reported.
By ensuring that the land transfer won't happen before late August, Judge Lanza in Arizona created time for those lawsuits to move forward.
The mining project's opponents present the judge's move as significant, noting that they haven't given up hope.
'We are grateful that Judge Lanza has provided us an opportunity to be heard,' San Carlos Apache Tribe Chairman Terry Rambler said in a statement provided to the Deseret News.
But the mining project's supporters believe their plan is still on track.
'The court correctly found no legal basis for a preliminary injunction, and its order is consistent with prior decisions about this project at every level, including the Supreme Court's recent decision to deny further review in Apache Stronghold v. United States,' said Vicky Peacey, president and general manager of Resolution Copper, in a statement. 'The order simply gives the parties time to review the (Environmental Impact Statement) within the timeframe Congress directed for the land exchange. We are confident the project satisfies all applicable legal requirements.'
The statement is expected to be published by June 20, Inside Climate News reported. Once it's released, the 60-day countdown will start.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
29 minutes ago
- Fox News
Progressive policies under fire: Career criminal walks free on 'shock probation'
The 'Outnumbered' panel discusses progressive crime policies that have allowed two criminals to walk free, one being a trans sex offender in Colorado and another being a kidnapping suspect in Kentucky.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This Frustrated Real Estate Agent's Rant About The Real Cause Of The Housing Crisis Is So Spot On
Zachary Foust is a 31-year-old real estate agent who has been working in Delaware for over eight years, but he's been going viral on TikTok for more than just selling homes. In a recent video, he shared a passionate rant about why it's so hard for young people to get on the housing ladder now, and it has people in his comments begging him to run for office. He started the video by sharing that he originally joined TikTok back in 2019 to share information about the home-buying process. "But slowly but surely, I didn't realize that I had a VIP front row seat to watching the American Dream get sifted away from the working class," he says. Zachary goes on to weave together threads showing how the wealthy and powerful have progressively made it harder and harder for average people to get ahead and own a home, from Reagan's tax cuts for the wealthy and the steady rise of private equity to the 2008 market crash and the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision that allowed the wealthy to pour more money into influencing politics than ever. He argues that all of these factors have led to "the infestation of institutional investors buying up and banking on asset inflation that is housing, that is shelter, keeping normal everyday people out of having a roof in exchange for billionaires having bigger accounts." According to the Summer 2025 Investor Pulse Report from BatchData, investors made up nearly 27% of home sales in the first quarter of this year, the highest level in the last five years. He goes on to say, "It's clear and evident that the billionaires and trillionaires on this planet are bored because they have everything that they need, yet the ego continues to devour at them and because of pride, because of ego, because of a lust for power. Not only are they trying to financially line their pockets more and more, but they're doing it to the tune of draining out the bottom of our economy, draining out the working class income, draining out the upper middle class asset opportunity." In one of the most fiery moments of his rant, he says, "I don't want to just sell homes. I want to start a change for something so that you can get in on the wealth, or we could change the system in some way, all together, promote more equality. Why am I labeled a communist if I want people to have a chance?" It's kind of a long video, but if you have 10 minutes to spare, it's really worth hearing what he has to say for yourself: @zacharyloft / Via Zachary shared with BuzzFeed that he sees real estate as so much more than just a place to live or just his career. "To me, owning a home is a bedrock of protection. It's a place that you have full ownership of with the people you love, a safe haven that's truly yours. It's also an investment that appreciates over time, a foundation of security when everything else in life might feel uncertain." And he shared that in 2022, he started to get more and more disillusioned with his career as he saw clients who'd done "everything right" yet still were unable to buy homes. "The reality hit me when I had clients earning over $100,000 with 700 credit scores, and I still had to walk them through how to prepare to buy a home because they no longer had the freedom to purchase like they once did. Meanwhile, retirees, boomers, and investors (many of whom pay cash) were still buying at a remarkable pace. The market for first-time or working-class buyers stalled, while cash and retirement purchases hardly slowed." Despite the financial challenges the average young American faces, Zachary encourages people not to give up. "Take action, even in a tough market. None of us can predict the future, but you can control your financial foundation. Keep debt low and credit high, ideally over 700. That shows you're handling money well and also positions you to save. I'd invest those savings into something that can yield 4–7% annually to grow your nest egg for a future down payment." And he says there's no shame in not being as fiercely independent as the ideal American Dream. "The best advice I've given in the past two and a half years is to ignore the stigma around living with family or friends. Living with your parents, family, or a group of friends, 'homie hacking' a mortgage together, is one of the smartest things you can do. It's awesome. Avoiding rent for a few years to save aggressively?? It can be life-changing." Finally, he says, "When I bought my first home, it meant the world to me, it was my wife and my very first nest egg, my first big step into adulthood, and my first real responsibility. That experience shaped so much of how I see homeownership today." Are you a homeowner or saving up to buy your first home? Tell us about your experiences in the housing market in the comments or via the anonymous form below: Solve the daily Crossword
Fox News
41 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump vs Newsom showdown lands in court with family ties to the nation's highest bench
The federal government argued before a California judge -- the brother of a retired Supreme Court justice -- that President Donald Trump acted within his legal authority by deploying the National Guard and Marines to quell immigration riots in Los Angeles earlier this year. Judge Charles Breyer – sibling of President Bill Clinton-appointed Justice Stephen Breyer – heard testimony in the case brought by the Newsom administration over whether the federal government violated federal law in its use of the military on domestic soil and/or the 10th Amendment. The case is expected to test the limits of a president's power as commander in chief, as the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act — born out of Reconstruction — requires either an act of Congress or constitutional authorization to use the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement. The penalty under that act is a prison term of two years and a fine, at most. In the 1997 case of Printz v. U.S., Justice Antonin Scalia ruled in favor of two county sheriffs in declaring that the federal government has no authority to commandeer or compel local law enforcement to take special actions. However, in Martin v. Mott, Madison-appointed Justice Joseph Story wrote in a 6-0 opinion that the president has sole authority to determine when emergency use of state militias (national guards) is appropriate. In court, Breyer said his ultimate decision will have far-reaching consequences for how presidents, including Trump, can deploy assets in other cities, Politico reported – as the president used the District of Columbia's unique 1970s charter to briefly take control of its police force this week. Acting Los Angeles ICE Director Ernesto Santacruz Jr. testified Monday that he received multiple reports of his officers being attacked in the days leading up to Trump's deployment. "We still had officer-assault situations, but they did reduce drastically" after Trump took control of the situation, he said. However, Breyer has said the anti-immigration riots fell "far short of rebellion" – in terms of what would constitute federal intervention permitted under Posse Comitatus. Newsom has argued that Trump went far afield of the 1878 law and violated the purview of California's governor to control his own National Guard. California National Guard Commander Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman testified Monday that he had opposed the request on Father's Day for assistance in an operation that day, citing a minimal threat-assessment to officers at the time. U.S. Customs & Border Patrol El Centro Sector Chief Agent Gregory Bovino did not agree with that assessment, according to reports of Monday's testimony. The trial comes as a related Washington, D.C., situation comes to a head, with Trump using the city charter to attempt to bring order to the District. U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro warned Monday that too many offenders – particularly juveniles – are getting away with violent crimes against innocent civilians. "Young people are coddled, and they don't need to be coddled anymore. They need to be held accountable. They shouldn't be going to arts and crafts and family court," she said, as the Trump administration issued a verbal indictment of the D.C. City Council's lax law enforcement posture.
