Supreme Court Won't Hear Tribal Challenge to Copper Mine
The court's decision in Apache Stronghold v. United States took the form of an unsigned order. The court did not explain its ruling.
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented, saying the court should have considered whether the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) applies to the mine development. Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the case.
Resolution Copper, which plans to develop the site,
Western Apaches have worshipped for centuries on a small sacred site in Arizona known as Oak Flat, which they consider to be a 'direct corridor to the Creator and the locus of sacred ceremonies that cannot take place elsewhere,' Apache Stronghold, a tribal organization, said in its
The land is part of the Tonto National Forest, which is overseen by the U.S. Forest Service.
Related Stories
3/12/2025
2/25/2025
Although the government had long protected Apache rituals at the site, its stance changed after copper was discovered there, according to the petition. The government moved to transfer the site to Resolution Copper to create a mine there 'that will undisputedly destroy Oak Flat—swallowing it in a massive crater and ending sacred Apache rituals forever,' the petition said.
Apache Stronghold contested the decision, citing the RFRA and the Constitution's free exercise clause. A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the lawsuit in May 2024 after a federal district court denied a request to block the land transfer. The district court found Apache Stronghold's lawsuit was not likely to succeed.
The RFRA was created to safeguard the constitutional right of minority religious groups to exercise their religious beliefs. The statute forbids the federal government from 'substantially burdening' religious exercise unless doing so is deemed to be the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling government interest.
Although the appeals court acknowledged that the destruction of Oak Flat would 'literally prevent' the Apaches from participating in practicing their religion, it still found that developing the mine would not substantially interfere with their religious exercise under the RFRA, the petition said.
In his
'No more. Now, the government and a mining conglomerate want to turn Oak Flat into a massive hole in the ground. To extract copper lying beneath the land, they plan to blast tunnels that will result in a crater perhaps 1,000 feet deep and nearly two miles wide.'
The development will prevent the Apaches from ever using the site again for religious worship, and it is 'a grave mistake' for the Supreme Court to reject the case, which 'meets every one of the standards we usually apply when assessing petitions' for review, Gorsuch wrote.
'The decision below is highly doubtful as a matter of law, it takes a view of the law at odds with those expressed by other federal courts of appeals, and it is vitally important. Before allowing the government to destroy the Apaches' sacred site, this Court should at least have troubled itself to hear their case,' the justice said.
Then-Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said in a
The district court was correct to find that the congressional authorization for the land transfer was a 'valid and neutral law of general applicability' that 'merely authorizes the exchange of land' between Resolution Copper and the federal government.
That court also determined that the land exchange would not 'substantially burden' religious exercise under the RFRA, the brief said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
5 hours ago
- Newsweek
Supreme Court Faces Decision on Case Urging Overturn of Same-Sex Marriage
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. Supreme Court is facing a choice about whether to take up a case filed by former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis urging the overturn its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark case that guaranteed the right to same-sex marriage nationwide. Davis' attorney Matthew Staver told Newsweek he is optimistic the court will take the case. William Powell, the attorney who represented the couple that sued Davis, wrote in a statement provided to Newsweek he is "confident the Supreme Court will likewise agree that Davis's arguments do not merit further attention." Daniel Urman, law professor at Northeastern University, told Newsweek it is unlikely the Supreme Court would agree to overturn same-sex marriage. Why It Matters The case, filed by Davis—a former Kentucky clerk who spent six days in jail over her refusal to provide marriage certificates to same-sex couples on religious grounds—could represent a threat to federal protections for same-sex marriage one decade after the nation's highest court legalized the unions across the country. Some justices like Clarence Thomas have signaled an openness to revisiting the case in recent years as the court has moved to the right. That conservative shift on cultural issues has been defined by its 2022 ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, which for decades guaranteed abortion rights. If the court overturns nationwide same-sex marriage, the issue would likely return to the states, many of which have still not passed laws allowing members of the same sex to get married. The U.S. Supreme Court justices pose for a portrait in Washington, D.C., on October 7, 2022. The U.S. Supreme Court justices pose for a portrait in Washington, D.C., on October 7, To Know In a recently filed petition to the Supreme Court, Davis' attorney Matthew Staver raised religious objections to same-sex marriage. "Obergefell was 'egregiously wrong,' 'deeply damaging,' 'far outside the bound of any reasonable interpretation of the various constitutional provisions to which it vaguely pointed,' and set out 'on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided,'" he wrote. Davis' case "presents the ideal opportunity to revisit substantive due process that 'lacks any basis in the Constitution,' " the petition reads. "This flawed opinion has produced disastrous results leaving individuals like Davis 'find[ing] it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws,'" it reads. "And, until the Court revisits its 'creation of atextual constitutional rights,' Obergefell will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'" The filing said that if the court overturns Obergefell, marriage rights would be returned to the states, but that any same-sex couples who were married since the ruling would be grandfathered. Staver told Newsweek he believes the decision is on "weak on shaky ground." "It has no basis in the Constitution," he said. "It's what caused this issue with Kim Davis to be sent to prison for six days and now facing hundreds of thousands of dollars personally, is the Obergefell opinion originally, and I think that it's time to reevaluate that and overturn it." Urman told Newsweek it is "very unlikely for the Court to hear the case." While Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito may side with her, it's appears less likely that conservative justices like Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts would move to overturn same-sex marriage, he said. "There's a chance that a conservative majority could use the case to expand the rights of religious objectors to same-sex marriage," he said. "But that's not the same as overturning the right itself, and I don't see a majority of the Court ready to do that. Culturally, same-sex marriage has become embedded in American life, and it is still popular in public opinion polls." Paul Collins, professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told Newsweek that while Davis wants to use the case as a vehicle for the court to overturn same-sex marriage, that isn't necessarily the issue at the heart of the case. "Instead, it is about a jury verdict for inflicting emotional damages by violating a same-sex couple's right to marry. This just isn't the right vehicle for challenging a constitutional right to same-sex marriage," he said. Conservative members of the court are likely to be interested in overturning same-sex marriage but may not view this as the best case to do so, Collins said. "If the Court were to take the case, I think they would likely stick to the core issue in the case: the jury verdict regarding Davis violating the couple's constitutional right to marry," he said. Kim Davis' Arguments Have Faced Legal Scrutiny Davis became a national figure after she denied licenses to same-sex couples following the Obergefell ruling on June 26, 2015, over her religious objections. In September of that year, a judge held her in contempt, and she spent six days in jail. Davis' arguments have been rejected by lower courts. A 6th District Court of Appeals panel earlier this year dismissed her First Amendment argument because she is being "held liable for state action," rather than her individual actions. "Although Davis's assertions are novel, they fail under basic constitutional principles. Under § 1983, Davis is being held liable for state action, which the First Amendment does not protect—so the Free Exercise Clause cannot shield her from liability," that ruling reads. The Supreme Court also denied an appeal filed by Davis in 2020. How Popular Is Support for Same-Sex Marriage? Polls show that most American support for same-sex marriage remains high, but has dropped in the past few years. Gallup showed that 69 percent of all Americans back the legalization of same-sex marriage in May 2024, down from 71 percent in May 2023. Eighty-three percent of Democrats and 74 percent of independents support same-sex marriage, while only 46 percent of Republicans do so. What People Are Saying Attorney William Powell, who represents the couple who sued Davis for not providing a marriage license wrote in a statement to Newsweek: "Not a single judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals showed any interest in Davis's rehearing petition, and we are confident the Supreme Court will likewise agree that Davis's arguments do not merit further attention." Paul Collins, professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst told Newsweek: "Conservative Christians are serious about getting the Court to reconsider Obergefell. This case is being brought by Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal organization. If the Court denies Davis' petition—which I think it will—this won't be the end of the battle against same sex marriage and LGBTQ+ rights more generally." Daniel Urman, law professor at Northeastern University, told Newsweek: "The current supermajority on the Supreme Court has the votes to reshape American law how they see fit, but the Court still needs to appear legitimate in the eyes of the public. Overturning the right to same-sex marriage could spark tremendous public backlash and criticism of the Court. Chief Justice Roberts would work very hard to avoid this, and I don't see more than 2 votes (Alito and Thomas) to overturn Obergefell." Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the 2022 case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization: "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell." What Happens Next The Supreme Court could make a decision about whether to accept Davis' case in the coming months but has not indicated either way which way it is leaning.
USA Today
a day ago
- USA Today
Texas Democrats fled the state to oppose GOP redistricting. Why this one stayed behind.
In 2003, Texas Rep. Richard Peña Raymond battled a Republican redistricting plan all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Now, he's doing it again. But as fellow Democrats fled the state, he stayed. AUSTIN – State Rep. Richard Peña Raymond, a South Texas Democrat, has spent the past week prowling near-empty halls in the Texas state Capitol, talking to any Republican lawmaker who would listen and trying to avert a U.S. Supreme Court showdown. On the nearby House floor, Republican lawmakers maneuvered to try to launch a rare mid-decade redistricting effort. They've drawn up a new map of U.S. House districts that could give the GOP five more seats and help the party maintain control of the narrowly-divided chamber. Most of Raymond's Democratic colleagues left Texas in an attempt to bust the quorums needed for the legislature to pass the measure. But he stayed behind, trying to cajole, convince, pressure or plead his way out of the crisis. For Raymond, it's déjà vu all over again. In 2003, when Texas Republican lawmakers again tried to redraw districts outside the norms of the once-a-decade process that follows each new Census, Raymond was on the redistricting committee and became an ardent voice of the opposition. When the measure passed, he was named as a plaintiff in a lawsuit that ultimately ended in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. This time, he said, the stakes are even higher. 'Two-thousand-three was a big deal. We went through a lot,' Raymond, 64, told USA TODAY from his first-floor office at the Capitol. 'I could see that that was history making and what's going on right now will be history making.' Midterm battle prompts Texas showdown The current showdown began when President Donald Trump and White House officials urged Texas Republican leaders to redraw voting maps to add five new Republican-friendly seats to the U.S. House of Representatives. State Democrats traveled to Illinois – some even to New York and Massachusetts – to prevent Republicans from reaching the two-thirds quorum in the 150-member legislature needed to conduct business. If Texas Republicans succeed in adding five GOP seats to the U.S. House, the Trump-friendly chamber could allow the president to continue one of the most aggressive and disruptive agendas in modern presidential history. A Democratic majority in January 2027 opens the door to Congressional investigations, legislative paralysis − even a third impeachment. Gov. Greg Abbott has threatened to arrest the absent lawmakers and the U.S. Justice Department has said it will also try to track down the AWOL representatives. And on Aug. 8, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asked the state Supreme Court to oust 13 Democratic lawmakers from office over their absence from the Capitol, arguing they abandoned their seats when they fled the state. The GOP's Texas power play has set off a redistricting arms race as blue state leaders move to create more Democratic-leaning House seats to counter Texas, and lawmakers in other red states, including Indiana and Missouri, consider joining the fray. Vice President JD Vance met with Indiana lawmakers on Aug. 7 reportedly to urge them to redraw maps and Florida Republican leaders have said they, too, will form a committee to begin redrawing districts. In 2003, Texas Republicans also tried to redraw maps three years after Census data was released, prompting state Democrats to retreat to a Holiday Inn in Oklahoma, just over the state line from Texas and out of reach of troopers who could force them to return. 'Pack a toothbrush. Pack hair spray.' How the Texas Democrats are living on the run Raymond fought the bill in committee then joined his colleagues in Oklahoma. During committee hearings, he was at times the lone Democrat, objecting to Republican motions and grilling witnesses about the legality and fairness of gerrymandering maps for partisan gain. His goal was to get his comments and questions – and their replies – on the official record. 'Just really putting them through the ringer to build the court record,' he remembered. 'I was very, very involved in it, from the beginning to the end.' Lawmakers ultimately approved the new maps. But lawsuits were filed and the case wound up in the U.S. Supreme Court. A 5-4 decision upheld the Texas redistricting plan but ruled part of it violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting power of Latino voters. A proposal to split Laredo, Raymond's hometown, in half was removed. 'It was a 50-50 victory, but a victory nonetheless,' he said. 'Try to talk to everybody' On Aug. 8, Raymond walked the short distance from his first-floor office to the second-floor House chamber. He wound his way around desks, chatting with fellow lawmakers, both Democrat and Republican, patting others on the back, joking with others. There's a saying, he said, that's popular in the Spanish-speaking border city where he's from: Hablando se entiende, or 'Speaking to each other, you're able to understand each other.' 'I have always tried my whole career to try to talk to everybody, get to know everybody, all 149 other members,' he said. 'That hasn't changed.' Raymond, a state lawmaker since 2001, is one of the more tenured Democrats in the legislature. Known as a moderate, he represents a heavily Latino district that fans out for several square miles from Laredo along the U.S.-Mexico border and is home to about 183,000 residents. Last year, Trump managed a near sweep of Texas border counties, traditionally a Democratic stronghold, winning 14 of the 18 counties on or near the border, including Webb County, which includes Laredo. Trump's wins along the border were the biggest for a presidential candidate in three decades, outpacing those by native Texan George W. Bush when he won the governorship in 2004. The border's shifting allegiances make it politically risky for representatives of those districts to align too closely with national Democratic figures, such as Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who is essentially harboring the Texas Democrats, said Mark Jones, a Rice University political scientist. It's no coincidence, Jones said, that five of the six Democrats who stayed behind last week were from border districts in South Texas. Raymond, who is up for reelection next year, also likely prefers to keep his distance, he said. Republicans in Texas appear to be razor-focused on keeping the new redistricting maps unchanged, Jones said, despite the efforts of Raymond or anyone else. 'The idea you can stay behind and get maps drawn to be less impactful on Democratic representation is very unlikely,' he said. Raymond acknowledged he's faced with a herculean task – not unlike Sisyphus rolling the boulder up the hill at Tartarus in Greek mythology. His deepest fear, he said, is that the issue will again end up before the Supreme Court – this time with a court much more malleable to the GOP agenda. Still, he'll keep trying. When it gets to feel overwhelming, he said, he tries to remind himself that other members equally love their country and state – and are trying to make it better. 'I recognize that we won't always agree on how we get there, but I don't ever doubt that,' Raymond said. 'I always start from that common place.' The session on Aug. 8 was brief: Eight minutes gavel to gavel. House Speaker Dustin Burrows, a Republican, recognized there still wasn't a quorum, chastised the missing members and adjourned until Monday, Aug. 11. Moments after Burrows gaveled the meeting to a close, Raymond began talking to other lawmakers. Follow Jervis on Twitter: @MrRJervis. Contributing: Zac Anderson, USA TODAY.
Miami Herald
3 days ago
- Miami Herald
Supreme Court approval rating sinks to a new low, poll finds. What caused shift?
The U.S. Supreme Court's approval rating has sunk to an all-time low, dropping below 40% for the first time ever, according to a new Gallup poll. The decline was driven by record-low shares of Democrats and independents expressing support for the high court. At the same time, Republican support has ticked upward, resulting in the largest partisan gap on record. The findings come 'amid a highly polarized U.S. political and media climate, which often leads to greater scrutiny of the actions of political actors and government institutions,' according to Gallup. They also come in the wake of several controversial court decisions, including the 2022 reversal of Roe v. Wade — which overturned the constitutional right to an abortion — and the 2024 landmark ruling granting presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution. Here is a breakdown of the results: In the poll, 39% of respondents said they approved of the way the high court has handled its job — the lowest figure since Gallup began asking this question in 2000. This is down five points from 44% in 2024. But, it is largely consistent with the figures recorded between 2022 and 2023, which fluctuated between 40% and 43%. In the late 2010s, by contrast, the court's approval rating was generally higher, bouncing between the high 40s and low 50s. Prior to that, the rating swung up and down significantly, dropping to 42% in June 2005 and rising to a record high of 61% in August 2009. In the latest survey — which sampled 1,002 U.S. adults July 7-21 — Democrats expressed their lowest-ever support for the high court. Just 11% said they approved of the nine-member court's performance, down from 15% in 2024 and 23% in September 2023. Likewise, an all-time low share of independents, 34%, expressed approval, marking a 10-point drop from July 2024, according to the poll, which has a margin of error of 4 percentage points. On the other hand, 75% of Republicans said they approved of the Supreme Court, up from 72% in September 2024. The current GOP rating is only surpassed by an 80% approval rating recorded in January 2001. The current partisan divide widens a gap that emerged around July 2022, following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Prior to that, in September 2021, Republicans and Democrats offered similar approval ratings — 45% and 36%, respectively. In recent years, several members of the court — which holds a 6-3 conservative majority — have weighed in on its declining approval ratings and loss of public confidence. 'When courts become extensions of the political process, when people see them as extensions of the political process, when people see them as trying just to impose personal preferences on a society irrespective of the law, that's when there's a problem,' Justice Elena Kagan, who was nominated to the court by President Barack Obama, said in 2022, according to Politico. On the other hand, around the same time, Chief Justice John Roberts, an appointee of President George W. Bush, said, 'Simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for questioning the legitimacy of the court.'
