The Supreme Court said no, but this legal battle lives on
A major mining project in Arizona remains on hold this month even after the Supreme Court declined to consider a faith-based plea to block it.
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
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Proud Boys' lawsuit is legally unsound — but DOJ will likely just surrender
The $100 million lawsuit filed by leaders of the far-right militant group the Proud Boys is legally unsound — but it has an excellent chance of success. The plaintiffs — Henry 'Enrique' Tarrio and four others — had been found guilty of seditious conspiracy and other crimes arising from their roles in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol that interfered with the transition of power following Joe Biden's victory over Donald Trump in the 2020 election. The lawsuit's excellent chance of a successful outcome for Tarrio and his co-defendants-turned-co-plaintiffs rests entirely on the current Justice Department's will to defend itself, which seems non-existent judging by DOJ's recent capitulation in the wrongful death case brought by the estate of Ashli Babbitt, a Trump supporter shot and killed while trying to breach the House Speaker's Lobby on Jan. 6. The Babbitt case appeared weak. An investigation by the U.S. Capitol Police found that the officer had acted lawfully in shooting Babbitt, and a joint investigation by the D.C. police department and DOJ found no evidence that the officer had done anything other than act in self-defense of himself and members of Congress — who were actively being evacuated in the face of the Capitol attack at the time Babbitt climbed over a barricade and through a broken glass window to get into the Speaker's Lobby. The U.S. Attorney's Office for D.C. and the DOJ's Civil Rights Section jointly decided no criminal charges against the officer were warranted. Nevertheless, the Trump DOJ paid Babbitt's estate $5 million to settle. The Proud Boys case looks even weaker. Tarrio and the other plaintiffs are essentially re-arguing defenses they made at their trials: Their constitutional rights were violated under various theories, including due process, the right to a speedy trial and claims of unreasonable search and seizures. But one problem for them is these defenses were all rejected at trial and they were convicted and sentenced for their crimes. Bringing a civil suit for a wrongful prosecution in which the defendant(s) were convicted would be nearly impossible without that conviction being overturned on appeal. The other problem is that their case is brought primarily upon the so-called Bivens doctrine, which has fallen extremely out of favor with the courts. The doctrine arose from a 1971 Supreme Court case allowing plaintiff Webster Bivens to seek damages against federal agents for violating his Fourth Amendment rights in an illegal search and arrest. But since 1971, the Supreme Court has repeatedly denied Bivens as a remedy and federal trial courts — and appeals courts — have dismissed hundreds of lawsuits based on Bivens, which had led to the conclusion that the Bivens remedy is nearly dead. Professor Dennis Fan, a former DOJ civil attorney, told The Hill that it's 'essentially impossible' to bring a Bivens claim these days. The other basis for the Proud Boys' suit relies on the Federal Torts Claim Act to recover under a liability theory of malicious prosecution — a liability that Rupa Bhattacharyya, former director of DOJ's Torts Branch, describes as 'really, really low.' But likely outweighing all the legal hurdles for the Proud Boys' lawsuit are Trump's pardons of Tarrio and commutations of sentences for his co-plaintiffs. The pardons — not just of the Proud Boys but also of 1,600 defendants charged in the Jan. 6 attack — immeasurably complicate DOJ's potential defense against the lawsuit. The pardon and commutation language used by Trump states that it is ending 'a grave national injustice' — and during the signing ceremony, Trump described the Jan. 6 defendants as 'hostages' and said: 'What they've done to these people is outrageous. There's rarely been anything like it in the history of our country.' Tarrio also has written of his conversation with Trump at Mar-a-Lago where Trump told him that he was sorry for what President Joe Biden had done to Jan. 6 defendants and told him, 'I love you guys.' Both the language in the pardon and commutations and Trump's characterizations and apologies make a settlement nearly the only outcome. Indeed, a trial of the claims could result in the absurdity of Trump and other Trump administration officials testifying against DOJ's defense of its actions — in essence the administration testifying against itself. Nor would a judge be inclined to reject such a settlement. While theoretically a judge may refuse to accept a settlement, those instances typically involve cases that give a judge more authority over settlements. for example class actions like the Purdue Pharma opioid settlement case, in which the judge objected to a provision that would have protected the Sackler family from litigation. A settlement would have big financial consequences for taxpayers. The damage caused by the Jan. 6 attack is estimated by Congress' audit arm to be $2.7 billion, of which only $3 million was to be repaid in the form of restitution by Jan. 6 defendants. Whatever restitution was owed is wiped clean by the pardons and commutations, and the DOJ has already supported giving a refund to the defendants of any money already paid. It would also likely cause a flood of similar lawsuits from perhaps all of the 1,600 pardoned/commuted Jan. 6 defendants — which could add millions, maybe even hundreds of millions, to the tab. Such an income stream fits well with Trump's idea of creating a 'compensation fund' for pardoned Jan 6 rioters even as it would — in the words of history professor Allan J. Lichtman — send a 'horrendous message' that would legitimize 'violent insurrections.' Lichtman compared the settlements process to 'white supremacists during the Jim Crow era recasting Confederates who fought in the Civil War as 'noble.'' Essentially, the Trump administration could be creating reparations packages for Jan. 6 rioters. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Israel's Netanyahu survives vote to dissolve government
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu survived a vote to dissolve his government, but was left weakened. Netanyahu's coalition relies on ultra-Orthodox Jewish parties, who want religious students to remain exempt from Israel's compulsory military service, a demand the Supreme Court rejects. A last-minute deal stopped those parties from voting with the opposition, but is 'unlikely to solve the conundrum' long-term, The New York Times reported, and the split gives opposition parties an opportunity to divide and challenge the government. Netanyahu is a political survivor, but is under pressure: Rifts are also growing with US President Donald Trump, who reportedly demanded an end to Israel's operation in Gaza this week, a move Netanyahu is unwilling to make.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Trump isn't happy with Amy Coney Barrett. Hear how she questioned the White House's top lawyer
CNN's Joan Biskupic breaks down the key questions Amy Coney Barrett has pressed lawyers on before the Supreme Court that has roiled conservatives.
