Supreme Court declines religious freedom case over mining on sacred land
Supreme Court declines religious freedom case over mining on sacred land
Show Caption
Hide Caption
SCOTUS justices clash over ban on gender-affirming care for minors
The Justice Department and ACLU argued before the Supreme Court that a ban on gender-affirming care for minors is discrimination based on sex.
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on May 27 declined to get involved in a dispute about mining on land sacred to the San Carlos Apache Tribe, a case that religious groups backed to test the scope of a 1993 federal law protecting religious freedom.
Dozens of churches and religious groups urged the court to hear the challenge from members of the tribe, who are represented by a prominent religious rights law firm.
Lawyers for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty said courts are far too apt to dodge the question of what qualifies as an improper burden on religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Two of the court's conservative justices − Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas − said they would have taken the case.
Another conservative justice, Samuel Alito, said he did not participate in the decision. Alito did not give a reason for his recusal.
The case the court declined to hear involves a section of the Tonto National Forest in Arizona that sits atop the world's third-largest deposit of copper ore.
In 2014, Congress handed over 2,422 acres in the region to a private mining company, Resolution Copper, in exchange for other land in Arizona.
Apache Stronghold, an advocacy group representing some members of the San Carlos Apache Tribe, sued to block the transfer. The Apache Tribe says the site − called Chí'chil Biłdagoteel, or Oak Flat – is their direct corridor to the Creator and is needed for religious ceremonies that cannot take place elsewhere.
Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the government cannot 'substantially burden' a person's exercise of religion without a 'compelling governmental interest.'
The federal government said the Supreme Court has previously ruled that the law doesn't apply when the government is dealing with its own property.
But Mark Rienzi, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said it's obvious that tribal members' religious expression is being hampered.
'Of course, it's a burden on their religion when you blow up their sacred site and they can't worship there,' Rienzi said. 'That's just plain English.'
The mining company said that interpretation of the law would allow one person to block any use of public land except their own if they sincerely believed some activity − 'be it camping, hunting, fishing, hiking or mining' – destroyed the land's sanctity.
Resolution Copper also said its project has the potential to supply nearly one-quarter of the nation's copper needs to help with the transition to clean energy and other national priorities.
Earlier this month, a federal judge in Arizona temporarily blocked the federal government from moving forward with the land transfer until the Supreme Court acted on the appeal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
21 minutes ago
- UPI
Supreme Court revives straight woman's 'reverse discrimination' suit
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that a straight woman denied a management position in favor of gay hires can revive her Title VII Civil Rights Act job discrimination lawsuit. File Photo by Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States/UPI | License Photo June 5 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that a straight woman can move forward with her Title VII Civil Rights Act job discrimination lawsuit, which claimed "reverse discrimination." The justices voted 9-0 to side with Marlean Ames, ruling that she faced a higher burden to be able to sue for discrimination as a straight woman after she was passed up for job opportunities in favor of two LGBTQ applicants. "We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority-group plaintiffs," the court wrote. Ames sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services after she was denied a management position in favor of a lesbian woman hired for that job. She also lost out on another job at the agency when a gay man was hired instead as a program administrator. The lower court judgment was vacated and the Ames case was remanded back to the lower court to be heard applying the Supreme Court's finding. The decision said the Sixth Circuit erred when it "implemented a rule that requires certain Title VII plaintiffs-those who are members of majority groups-to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard." The ruling makes it easier for majority-group plaintiffs to argue "reverse discrimination" lawsuits. At issue was the "background circumstances" rule. As interpreted by the Sixth Circuit, that rule requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard in Title VII lawsuits. "Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone," the Supreme Court decision said. "The Sixth Circuit's 'background circumstances' rule requires plaintiffs who are members of a majority group to bear an additional burden at step one. But the text of Title VII's disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs." The Supreme Court said that provision "focuses on individuals rather than groups, barring discrimination against 'any individual' because of protected characteristics." The high court rejected Ohio's argument that the "background circumstances" rule does not subject majority-group plaintiffs to a heightened legal standard when they sue alleging discrimination under Title VII. "The 'background circumstances' rule -- which subjects all majority-group plaintiffs to the same, highly specific evidentiary standard in every case -- ignores the Court's instruction to avoid inflexible applications of the prima facie standard," the Supreme Court wrote. The Supreme Court held 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." The Civil Rights Act bars discrimination based on "race, color, religion, sex or national origin." Ohio maintained Ames was not chosen for the jobs in question due to her lack of the necessary vision and leadership skills, not because she was straight. A three-judge Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals panel agreed that Ames would have been likely to prevail if she was a gay woman. But they ruled against her due to the higher burden created by the Sixth Circuit interpretation of the "background circumstances" rule.
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
How Trump's new travel ban differs from his first term
President Trump issued a new travel ban that targets 12 countries and includes partial restrictions on seven others, expanding on the policy he put into place during his first term. Trump's attempts to restrict entry into the United States from certain countries in his first term drew legal challenges and protests at airports across the country. This time around, the administration laid the foundation for the proclamation with an earlier executive order focused on enhanced vetting. Here are the countries targeted by the travel ban, and how they differ from those included in Trump's first-term policy. Trump's first-term travel ban went through multiple iterations after federal courts blocked the initial version. The policy stopped entry into the U.S. for nationals from seven Muslim-majority nations: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Its attempted implementation led to mass confusion and was blocked by a federal judge. The version eventually upheld by the Supreme Court barred entry into the United States for nationals of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen. Chad was later removed after the administration said it met its security requirements. Former President Biden revoked Trump's travel ban upon taking office. Perhaps most notably, Syria and North Korea are no longer included on Trump's new travel ban, which goes into effect Monday. Trump during his first term developed a warmer relationship with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, and they held two in-person summits. The president last month announced he would lift U.S. sanctions on Syria following the ousting of dictator Bashar Assad in December. Trump said he was encouraged to do so by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Chad, Iran, Somalia, Libya and Yemen are back on the travel ban list. Venezuela is one of seven countries that will have travel 'partially' restricted. In total, the travel ban issued on Wednesday affects 19 countries. Nationals from 12 countries face a full ban. Those include Afghanistan, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Nationals from seven countries will have entry into the United States partially restricted. Those include Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. The New York Times reported that the State Department issued roughly 170,000 visas in total to the 12 countries that are banned from entry, most of which were for tourism, business or study.
Axios
38 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.
