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
The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
The plot to destroy Black political power
Get ready for the rage: The conservative majority on the Supreme Court looks likely to gut the last remaining parts of the Voting Rights Act. Prompted by a Black conservative, Justice Clarence Thomas, the high court will consider in October a question that answers itself — whether it is wrong to stop openly racist tactics in drawing congressional districts. Even if the right-wing justices manage to close their eyes to the racial politics involved, they will feel the heat and hear the explosive impact of the backlash to a one-sided ruling. The fuse will be lit in several Republican-controlled states, largely in the South, as white politicians begin diluting votes in Black-majority districts to silence Black voices in Congress. Deep-red state legislatures — think of South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi — will be free to demolish their Black-majority congressional districts. Those white-majority, Trump-backing state legislatures aim to bring an end to the careers of several Black Democrats in Congress, such as Reps. Cleo Fields (D-La.), Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) and Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.). As a purely political exercise, Trump and his Republican allies have wanted to eliminate these districts for years, because Black voters are key to the Democratic Party's congressional strength. The Voting Rights Act allows for federal courts to look for racial damage done by gerrymandering districts. In the case now before the high court, involving redistricting in Louisiana, the state was forced to add a second Black-majority district. A federal court ruled that, with 33 percent of the state being Black, it was wrong for only one of its six congressional districts to be majority Black. But that led to a lawsuit over the new map. Along the lines of Thomas's recent call for a total end to the Voting Rights Act, the challengers contend that the law — which was created to protect equal voting rights for Black Americans — now prohibits the court from stopping white Republicans from playing politics and crushing Black power as a proportional representation of a state's racial makeup. Thomas makes the case that attention to 'race-based' construction of congressional districts is out of touch with recent history. He argues that 'specific identified instances' of racial bias, including violent voter suppression, are now distant and amount to relics of the nation's past. Last week, a federal appeals court disagreed. The Fifth Circuit ruled that Louisiana's congressional district map 'packed' and 'cracked' Black populations to limit their political power. The ruling stated there are 'decades of binding precedent' under the 15th Amendment allowing Congress to contest racial bias in redistricting. The 1965 Voting Rights Act was written in response to the nation's long history of keeping political power in white hands. Even after Black men gained the right to vote, it was common for that vote to be suppressed through violence. For perspective, South Carolina is 26 percent Black and 67 percent white. But white-majority Republican congressional districts are 86 percent of South Carolina's seven congressional districts. Only one of seven districts has a majority of Democrats and Black voters — Clyburn's district. The Supreme Court plans to hear arguments on racial redistricting on Oct. 15 — early enough for a decision that could affect the 2026 midterms. If the Black vote is diluted, the Democratic Party's ability to win seats in Congress shrinks, increasing Republican chances of retaining majorities in the House and Senate in 2026. That would keep Trump from becoming a lame duck facing a divided Congress. The Republicans' goal is to maintain majorities in Congress for Trump's last two years in the White House. Then Republicans can appoint more judges to issue more rulings that further weaken Democrats. The downward spiral for Black political power will go on and on. Trump is not hiding his interest in the outcome of gerrymandering efforts in Texas. 'We have an opportunity in Texas to pick up five seats,' Trump told CNBC earlier this month. 'We have a really good governor, and we have good people in Texas. I got the highest vote in the history of Texas … and we are entitled to five more seats.' Excuse me, Mr. President? Neither you nor the Republican Party is entitled to any seats. Those seats belong to Americans of all colors and parties. Texas Republicans' threats to send law enforcement to forcibly return Texas Democratic legislators to the state capitol to provide a quorum for passing gerrymandered maps are a sideshow. They distract from the real effect that racially-designed gerrymandering can have on race relations and politics for decades to come. Comedian Dave Chappelle famously called Trump 'an honest liar.' In the fight over Texas redistricting, the 'honest liar' is saying that the people looking at redistricting's racial impact are themselves racist. Don't let Trump or his partisans on the high court fool you. Racial justice in Congress is at stake. Democrats will have to fight fire with fire to prevent Trump from diminishing Black voting power. Democrats owe that much to Black voters, who have carried them to electoral victories over the last 60 years. They owe it to the memory of the brave people who marched, were beaten and even died to demand voting rights only 60 years ago.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
LILLEY: Here's the legal reason the Air Canada strike will only end at the table
The Air Canada strike is only going to end one way: With a negotiated settlement. The union is defiant, Canadians love to hate Air Canada so much of the public will back the union, and Patty Hajdu's attempt to force the workers back on the job was an illegal and unconstitutional move. That's right, the government was going against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or at least how some liberal judges on the Supreme Court interpreted it back in 2015. Back-to-work legislation or using Section 107 of the Canadian Labour Code simply won't cut it anymore. 'The right to strike is not merely derivative of collective bargaining, it is an indispensable component of that right. It seems to me to be the time to give this conclusion constitutional benediction,' Justice Rosalie Abella wrote in a 2015 decision. And with those words, Abella upended decades of Canadian jurisprudence that had multiple times said that there was no Charter-protected right to strike. The case, called Saskatchewan Federation of Labour, challenged two provincial laws including one that declared some government workers to be engaged in essential services and not allowed to strike. In her long and rambling decision, Abella cited British labour practices from the 1700s, British and American labour law, German labour law, and even the European Social Charter to make her political rather than legal case. Even her phrase that 'It seems to me to be the time …' shows this was a personal and political decision rather than one based in Canadian law. In case after case, the Supreme Court had found there was no constitutional right to strike and cautioned against courts imposing strict and rigid laws on a delicate process. In a 2002 decision involving striking Pepsi workers, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote of the need for courts to be cautious. 'Judging the appropriate balance between employers and unions is a delicate and essentially political matter,' she wrote. 'This is the sort of question better dealt with by legislatures than courts. Labour relations is a complex and changing field, and courts should be reluctant to put forward simplistic dictums.' As recently as 2011, the Supreme Court had rejected that there was a Charter-protected constitutional right to strike. In 2015, led by Abella, the majority on the court, including McLachlin, found that the Charter's guarantee of the freedom of association in section 2(d) included the right to strike and threw away all precedents. 'The majority has so inflated the right to freedom of association that its scope is now wholly removed from the words of s. 2(d),' the dissenting justices wrote in response to Abella's decision. So, although many don't realize this, tools that governments once used, such as back-to-work legislation, to end disruptive strikes like Air Canada's current situation are now null and void. Their validity is being fought in the courts and will eventually come down on the side of the unions. It was for this reason that Ontario Premier Doug Ford used the notwithstanding clause when introducing back-to-work legislation for education workers in 2022. By recognizing the Charter right to strike, Abella took away those tools. We will likely soon find the minister of labour's ability to order people into arbitration and to 'maintain or secure industrial peace' won't be considered constitutional either. Which means that Air Canada and CUPE, representing the striking flight attendants, will continue to battle it out in the court of public opinion. Whichever one can gain the biggest PR win will win at the negotiating table. This is essentially a political and public relations war between a company and employees, which is why previous court judgments had recommended against the court getting involved in such disputes. If only the majority in 2015 had listened to their own precedent instead of Abella's flight of fancy.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Former Somerset MP on the time he met 'charming' Putin
Ian Liddell-Grainger has spoken of the time he was summoned to meet President Vladimir Putin, writes Phil Hill. And he described the Russian leader as 'charming and with flawless English' during their meeting seven years ago. That was before Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine, which has reportedly resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. Mr Liddell-Grainger, who was MP for Bridgwater and West Somerset until last year's General Election, was chairing a public meeting in St Petersburg at the time. As president of the International Parliamentary Union, a trade union of MPs across most of the world, he was invited to 'come and meet someone'. 'That someone was Putin,' he said. ' We had 15 or 20 minutes. He was charming with flawless English. 'He was interested to know what the feeling was about Boris Johnson, who was about to become Foreign Secretary. 'I was slightly more discreet than I normally am and said Boris was an intelligent man. 'We talked about Europe, Russia and Britain. 'At the time, Putin was very much in vogue in Europe because of its gas and oil. It was a very different time before he did Georgia and all those other things. 'He was very charming and patient, an interesting guy. 'He's a good politician and has been around a long time. He's a narcissist who's very smart and knows how to keep the Russian people onside.' Mr Liddell-Grainger added that Presidents Trump and Putin hold the European Union and British leaders 'in contempt' and that Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy 'is going to be told what's going to happen - otherwise the war will go on'.
