Latest news with #Gorsuch
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Supreme Court clears way for massive copper mine on Apache sacred land
The Supreme Court declined Tuesday to hear an Apache religious challenge to the construction of a massive copper mine on Oak Flat, a swath of untouched federal land in Arizona that tribe members consider sacred and irreplaceable. The decision, which leaves intact a lower court's ruling against the tribe members, marked a major loss for Apache Stronghold, a group that has long argued that the mine's construction would violate their religious rights by permanently wiping out a unique sacred site used for Apache religious ceremonies. It allows the U.S. Forest Service to move forward with plans to issue a final environmental impact report and hear a last round of public comment before issuing a decision on transferring the land to Resolution Copper, a joint venture by the multinational mining companies Rio Tinto and BHP Group. Read more: Battle for Oak Flat: How Apache opposition to a copper mine became a religious liberty test Wendsler Nosie Sr., an Apache elder and leader of the Apache Stronghold, said in a statement that his group would continue to defend the land about 70 miles east of Phoenix — including through other court battles challenging the mine and an appeal to Congress to intervene. "We will never stop fighting — nothing will deter us from protecting Oak Flat from destruction," Nosie said. "We urge Congress to take decisive action to stop this injustice while we press forward in the courts." Vicky Peacey, Resolution Copper's general manager, said in a statement that the company was pleased the lower court's decision will stand. "The Resolution Copper mine is vital to securing America's energy future, infrastructure needs, and national defense with a domestic supply of copper and other critical minerals," Peacey said. She said the project has "significant community support" and "the potential to become one of the largest copper mines in America, add $1 billion a year to Arizona's economy, and create thousands of local jobs in a region where mining has played an important role for more than a century." The high court's majority did not articulate a stance in the case, but by declining to hear it sided with a heavily divided panel of judges in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled against the Apache in March 2024. However, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote a dissent — joined by his fellow conservative, Justice Clarence Thomas — saying the majority's decision not to take the case was "a grievous mistake" and "one with consequences that threaten to reverberate for generations." Gorsuch said he had "no doubt" that the high court would have heard the case "if the government sought to demolish a historic cathedral" rather than a Native American sacred site. "Faced with the government's plan to destroy an ancient site of tribal worship, we owe the Apaches no less," Gorsuch wrote. "They may live far from Washington, D.C., and their history and religious practices may be unfamiliar to many. But that should make no difference." Gorsuch said no one could "sensibly" argue against the significance of the case. "As the government has made plain, it intends to clear the way for Resolution Copper to begin the destruction of Oak Flat imminently," he wrote. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., another conservative, did not participate in the conversation or decision in the case, though a reason was not provided. The case touches on a host of politicized issues, including federal land use, religious liberty and efforts to balance corporate interests with limited natural resources and environmental degradation. It also has confounded traditional political divides, including by uniting conservative religious organizations and liberal environmental groups behind the Apache. The fight between Apache Stronghold and Resolution Copper has been ongoing for years. Nosie and other Stronghold members have traveled the country since the 9th Circuit ruling against them to raise awareness about their effort. Resolution Copper has continued billions of dollars' worth of preparations for the mine in the surrounding area, where it has other mining operations, and provided substantial financial support to local officials in the nearby town of Superior, Ariz. — which is braced for an influx of mining employees and their families and the accompanying strains on infrastructure. At the core of the Apache challenge to the mine is their argument that the mine would not just hamper their ability to practice their religion, but obliterate it. Oak Flat, on the edge of the Tonto National Forest about an hour outside Phoenix and not far from the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation, is used by the Apache for sweats and for coming-of-age ceremonies known as Sunrise Dances, where young girls are ushered into womanhood. The Apache believe the land is blessed by their creator and home to spiritual guardians akin to angels, and researchers have found the site is archaeologically significant not just to the Apache but to Hopi, O'odham, Yavapai and Zuni tribes. Oak Flat also sits atop one of the world's largest untapped copper ore deposits — with enough estimated copper to supply up to a quarter of U.S. copper demand. Such demand has exploded with the proliferation of telecommunications networks, electric vehicles and other technologies that use the element. The land in question had been under federal protection for decades, until Republicans added language allowing the federal government to sell or swap the land to the mining companies into a must-pass defense bill in 2014. Federal planning records show that extracting the deposit would over the course of several decades turn Oak Flat — which the Apache call Chí'chil Bildagoteel — into a nearly two-mile-wide, 1,000-foot-deep industrial crater. Resolution Copper has said it has worked closely with Native American advisors and worked to avoid important Apache sites in its planning, including nearby Apache Leap. Peacey said the company has been working for more than a decade to "preserve and reduce potential impacts on Tribal, social, and cultural interests," and will continue to do so. Apache Stronghold asked the Supreme Court to take up the case after an 11-judge panel of 9th Circuit judges split 6-5 in favor of the federal government's right to use its land as it chooses. Such splits in circuit decisions often get the attention of the high court, but not always. Judge Daniel P. Collins, an appointee of President Trump, authored the majority opinion. He wrote that Apache Stronghold's religious claims failed because, while the federal government's transfer of Oak Flat to Resolution Copper might interfere with the Apaches' practice of their religion, it did not "coerce" them into acting contrary to their beliefs, "discriminate" or "penalize" them, or deny them privileges afforded to other citizens. He wrote that Apache Stronghold had essentially asked the government to give them "de facto" ownership of a "rather spacious tract" of public land, which had to be rejected. Collins was joined by four other Trump appointees and an appointee of President George W. Bush. In his dissent Tuesday, Gorsuch wrote that the 9th Circuit "encompasses approximately 74% of all federal land and almost a third of the nation's Native American population," so its ruling that the government could destroy a sacred native site on federal land would now govern most if not all "sacred-site disputes" in the country moving forward. He said that ruling would not just threaten native sites, but all religious sites on federal land — including many churches. Luke Goodrich, an attorney for Apache Stronghold and senior counsel at the religious rights law firm Becket, said it was "hard to imagine a more brazen attack on faith than blasting the birthplace of Apache religion into a gaping crater," and the court's "refusal to halt the destruction is a tragic departure from its strong record of defending religious freedom." Times staff writer David G. Savage in Washington contributed to this report. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court just rejected a religion case. At least 2 of the justices aren't happy about it
The Supreme Court on Tuesday announced it won't hear a closely tracked religious freedom clash out of Arizona and revealed that at least two of the court's nine justices aren't pleased with the decision. Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented to the denial of certiorari in the case about mining on sacred land, calling it 'a grave mistake.' His dissent was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Samuel Alito may also have objected to the denial, but he took no part in its consideration. The Supreme Court's rejection of the case means that a lower court ruling against a group of Native Americans fighting to block a mining project will remain in place. In his dissent, Gorsuch criticized his colleagues for underrating the significance of the religious freedom questions that were raised. '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,' he wrote. Apache Stronghold v. United States centers on a proposed mining project in the Oak Flat area of Arizona, which is located about 70 miles east of Phoenix. The Western Apaches use Oak Flat for a variety of sacred ceremonies, including a coming-of-age ritual for young women, as Gorsuch pointed out in his dissent. In recognition of these ceremonies, the federal government protected portions of Oak Flat from mining for more than a century after taking control of it during 19th century wars. But then in 2014, Congress cleared the way for the land to be transferred to a private mining company by passing a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that had a last-minute rider about Oak Flat added on. In 2021, the federal government published an Environmental Impact Statement on Oak Flat, signaling that mining was soon to begin in the area. That's when Apache Stronghold filed a federal religious freedom lawsuit to seek to block the land transfer and mining project. The group argued that destroying Oak Flat would violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The act, which is also known as RFRA, prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening a sincere expression of faith unless there is no better way to fulfill a compelling government goal. Apache Stronghold argued that the mining project would destroy the Western Apaches' 'spiritual lifeblood,' Gorsuch wrote. While Apache Stronghold's lawsuit delayed the mining project, it didn't succeed in securing long-term protections for Oak Flat. The group lost at the district and circuit court level, where judges said mining does not represent a substantial burden under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In September, the group asked the Supreme Court to overturn those decisions and rule that religious freedom law protects against mining on sacred land. 'Oak Flat is our Mt. Sinai — the most sacred place where generations of Apache have come to connect with our Creator, our faith, and our land,' explained Wendsler Nosie Sr. of Apache Stronghold in a press release at the time. Several religious organizations, as well as Utah Sen. Mike Lee, filed Supreme Court briefs in support of Apache Stronghold in recent months. In his dissent, Gorsuch criticized the Supreme Court for allowing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling against Apache Stronghold to stand. He said that, at the very least, it hinged upon a controversial interpretation of how to apply the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in disputes involving government property and, at worst, it treated Native Americans much worse than Americans who are part of other, better-known faiths. 'Before allowing the government to destroy the Apaches' sacred site, this Court should at least have troubled itself to hear their case,' Gorsuch wrote. As is typical, the justices who voted against hearing Apache Stronghold v. United States did not explain their decision to the public. As a result of Tuesday's announcement, the federal government is free to move forward with its planned land transfer. In April, the Trump administration announced that it may release the final Environmental Impact Statement on Oak Flat as soon as next month.
Boston Globe
27-05-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
The Supreme Court rejects a plea to block a copper mine on land in Arizona that's sacred to Apaches
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in dissent that it was a 'grievous mistake' not to take up the appeal. 'Recognizing Oak Flat's significance, the government has long protected both the land and the Apaches' access to it,' Gorsuch wrote, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. 'No more. Now, the government and a mining conglomerate want to turn Oak Flat into a massive hole in the ground.' Advertisement A group known as Apache Stronghold, representing the interests of certain members of the San Carlos Apache Tribe, has argued that the land transfer will result in the destruction of the site in violation of its members' religious rights. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Apache tribes in Arizona consider Oak Flat, which is dotted with ancient oak groves and traditional plants, essential to their spiritual well-being. 'We will never stop fighting — nothing will deter us from protecting Oak Flat from destruction,' said Wendsler Nosie Sr. of Apache Stronghold. He called the high court's decision a 'heavy blow' but urged action in Congress while vowing to continue the court fight. An estimated 40 billion pounds of copper could be mined over the lifetime of the mine, according to the U.S. Forest Service. Advertisement The project has significant support in nearby Superior and other traditional mining towns in the area. The company estimates the mine will generate $1 billion a year for Arizona's economy and create thousands of local jobs. Victoria Peacey, general manager of Resolution Copper, said the project could become one of the largest copper mines in the country. She said the company has made 'major changes' to the mining plan to reduce the impact on tribes. Resolution Copper is a subsidiary of international mining giants Rio Tinto and BHP. Justice Samuel Alito did not take part in the case, presumably because he owns between $15,000 and $50,000 worth of BHP stock, according to his most recent financial disclosure. Congress approved a land swap in 2014 that would give Resolution Copper 3.75 square miles (9.71 square kilometers) of forest land in return for eight parcels it owns in Arizona. In the waning days of the first Trump administration, the U.S. Agriculture Department issued the required environmental review that would allow the land swap to proceed. Apache Stronghold sued in federal court to block it. With the change in administrations to President Joe Biden, the Agriculture Department, which includes the Forest Service, pulled back the review to further consult with Native American tribes. But the suit proceeded and a year ago, the federal appeals court in San Francisco split 6-5 to allow the land transfer to go forward, rejecting Apache Stronghold's arguments about religious freedom and its invocation of a 1852 treaty between the U.S. government and the Apaches. The five dissenting judges described the outcome as a tragic error that would result in 'the utter destruction' of the sacred site. Advertisement The Forest Service already has provided the 60 days notice that it intends to re-issue the environmental review, as required by a court order. A judge had agreed in May to pause the transfer, but only until the Supreme Court weighed in. Associated Press writer Lindsay Whitehurst contributed.
Los Angeles Times
27-05-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court clears way for massive copper mine on Apache sacred land
The Supreme Court declined Tuesday to hear an Apache religious challenge to the construction of a massive copper mine on Oak Flat, a swath of untouched federal land in Arizona that tribe members consider sacred and irreplaceable. The decision, which leaves intact a lower court's ruling against the tribe members, marked a major loss for Apache Stronghold, a group that has long argued that the mine's construction would violate their religious rights by permanently wiping out a unique sacred site used for Apache religious ceremonies. It allows the U.S. Forest Service to move forward with plans to issue a final environmental impact report and hear a last round of public comment before issuing a decision on transferring the land to Resolution Copper, a joint venture by the multinational mining companies Rio Tinto and BHP Group. Wendsler Nosie Sr., an Apache elder and leader of the Apache Stronghold, said in a statement that his group would continue to defend the land about 70 miles east of Phoenix — including through other court battles challenging the mine and an appeal to Congress to intervene. 'We will never stop fighting — nothing will deter us from protecting Oak Flat from destruction,' Nosie said. 'We urge Congress to take decisive action to stop this injustice while we press forward in the courts.' Vicky Peacey, Resolution Copper's general manager, said in a statement that the company was pleased the lower court's decision will stand. 'The Resolution Copper mine is vital to securing America's energy future, infrastructure needs, and national defense with a domestic supply of copper and other critical minerals,' Peacey said. She said the project has 'significant community support' and 'the potential to become one of the largest copper mines in America, add $1 billion a year to Arizona's economy, and create thousands of local jobs in a region where mining has played an important role for more than a century.' The high court's majority did not articulate a stance in the case, but by declining to hear it sided with a heavily divided panel of judges in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled against the Apache in March 2024. However, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote a dissent — joined by his fellow conservative, Justice Clarence Thomas — saying the majority's decision not to take the case was 'a grievous mistake' and 'one with consequences that threaten to reverberate for generations.' Gorsuch said he had 'no doubt' that the high court would have heard the case 'if the government sought to demolish a historic cathedral' rather than a Native American sacred site. 'Faced with the government's plan to destroy an ancient site of tribal worship, we owe the Apaches no less,' Gorsuch wrote. 'They may live far from Washington, D.C., and their history and religious practices may be unfamiliar to many. But that should make no difference.' Gorsuch said no one could 'sensibly' argue against the significance of the case. 'As the government has made plain, it intends to clear the way for Resolution Copper to begin the destruction of Oak Flat imminently,' he wrote. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., another conservative, did not participate in the conversation or decision in the case, though a reason was not provided. The case touches on a host of politicized issues, including federal land use, religious liberty and efforts to balance corporate interests with limited natural resources and environmental degradation. It also has confounded traditional political divides, including by uniting conservative religious organizations and liberal environmental groups behind the Apache. The fight between Apache Stronghold and Resolution Copper has been ongoing for years. Nosie and other Stronghold members have traveled the country since the 9th Circuit ruling against them to raise awareness about their effort. Resolution Copper has continued billions of dollars' worth of preparations for the mine in the surrounding area, where it has other mining operations, and provided substantial financial support to local officials in the nearby town of Superior, Ariz. — which is braced for an influx of mining employees and their families and the accompanying strains on infrastructure. At the core of the Apache challenge to the mine is their argument that the mine would not just hamper their ability to practice their religion, but obliterate it. Oak Flat, on the edge of the Tonto National Forest about an hour outside Phoenix and not far from the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation, is used by the Apache for sweats and for coming-of-age ceremonies known as Sunrise Dances, where young girls are ushered into womanhood. The Apache believe the land is blessed by their creator and home to spiritual guardians akin to angels, and researchers have found the site is archaeologically significant not just to the Apache but to Hopi, O'odham, Yavapai and Zuni tribes. Oak Flat also sits atop one of the world's largest untapped copper ore deposits — with enough estimated copper to supply up to a quarter of U.S. copper demand. Such demand has exploded with the proliferation of telecommunications networks, electric vehicles and other technologies that use the element. The land in question had been under federal protection for decades, until Republicans added language allowing the federal government to sell or swap the land to the mining companies into a must-pass defense bill in 2014. Federal planning records show that extracting the deposit would over the course of several decades turn Oak Flat — which the Apache call Chí'chil Bildagoteel — into a nearly two-mile-wide, 1,000-foot-deep industrial crater. Resolution Copper has said it has worked closely with Native American advisors and worked to avoid important Apache sites in its planning, including nearby Apache Leap. Peacey said the company has been working for more than a decade to 'preserve and reduce potential impacts on Tribal, social, and cultural interests,' and will continue to do so. Apache Stronghold asked the Supreme Court to take up the case after an 11-judge panel of 9th Circuit judges split 6-5 in favor of the federal government's right to use its land as it chooses. Such splits in circuit decisions often get the attention of the high court, but not always. Judge Daniel P. Collins, an appointee of President Trump, authored the majority opinion. He wrote that Apache Stronghold's religious claims failed because, while the federal government's transfer of Oak Flat to Resolution Copper might interfere with the Apaches' practice of their religion, it did not 'coerce' them into acting contrary to their beliefs, 'discriminate' or 'penalize' them, or deny them privileges afforded to other citizens. He wrote that Apache Stronghold had essentially asked the government to give them 'de facto' ownership of a 'rather spacious tract' of public land, which had to be rejected. Collins was joined by four other Trump appointees and an appointee of President George W. Bush. In his dissent Tuesday, Gorsuch wrote that the 9th Circuit 'encompasses approximately 74% of all federal land and almost a third of the nation's Native American population,' so its ruling that the government could destroy a sacred native site on federal land would now govern most if not all 'sacred-site disputes' in the country moving forward. He said that ruling would not just threaten native sites, but all religious sites on federal land — including many churches. Luke Goodrich, an attorney for Apache Stronghold and senior counsel at the religious rights law firm Becket, said it was 'hard to imagine a more brazen attack on faith than blasting the birthplace of Apache religion into a gaping crater,' and the court's 'refusal to halt the destruction is a tragic departure from its strong record of defending religious freedom.' Times staff writer David G. Savage in Washington contributed to this report.
Newsweek
27-05-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
Supreme Court Just Made 'Grave Mistake,' Justice Neil Gorsuch Says
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 declined to review a dispute over Apache sacred land on Tuesday, prompting Justice Neil Gorsuch to issue a dissent describing the denial as a "grave mistake." The case, brought by the group Apache Stronghold, sought to prevent the federal government's planned transfer of Oak Flat, a site in Arizona sacred to the Apache, to a mining company. Gorsuch argued that the Court should have agreed to hear the case, saying the lower court's decision "rests on questionable legal footing." The Court's order left intact a Ninth Circuit ruling that permitted the land transfer to proceed. Why It Matters The Supreme Court's decision has immediate and long-term consequences for Native American religious rights and land protection across the United States. Oak Flat has been revered by the Apache for generations, and its proposed transfer to mining company Resolution Copper has drawn condemnation from tribal leaders, religious liberty advocates and some lawmakers. The ruling brings wider attention to the legal complexities surrounding Indigenous sacred sites, federal land management, and religious freedom protections under the First Amendment. Without Supreme Court intervention, Native groups warn that their sacred lands may remain vulnerable to future government actions, prompting debate over the federal government's responsibility to safeguard Indigenous religious practices. Members of the Apache and others who want to halt a copper mining project on federal land in Arizona gather outside U.S. District Court on May 7, 2025, in Phoenix. Members of the Apache and others who want to halt a copper mining project on federal land in Arizona gather outside U.S. District Court on May 7, 2025, in Phoenix. AP Photo/Matt York, File What To Know The Supreme Court denied review in Apache Stronghold v. United States, a case challenging the planned land transfer of Oak Flat (Chi'chil Biłdagoteel) to a private mining company for copper extraction. The Ninth Circuit previously ruled that the transfer did not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a federal law protecting religious exercise. The land is considered by Apache communities to be essential for ceremonies and spiritual practice. Gorsuch's Dissent And Legal Reasoning Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, criticized the majority for declining to hear the case. "Respectfully, that is a grave mistake," Gorsuch said. "This case meets every one of the standards we usually apply when assessing petitions for certiorari: 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." Gorsuch likened the site's destruction to the hypothetical demolition of a historic cathedral, arguing that the Court should not treat "unpopular religious beliefs" differently from more familiar ones. Background On Oak Flat And The Dispute Oak Flat is in the Tonto National Forest in Arizona and has been used for generations by the Western Apache for religious ceremonies. In 2014, Congress approved a land swap in which Resolution Copper would receive the site for mining. Apache Stronghold, a nonprofit organization, sued to block the exchange, arguing that it would effectively destroy the Western Apache's ability to practice their religion at Oak Flat. Ninth Circuit Ruling Upheld The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the land transfer did not violate the group's rights under the RFRA, determining that the government's actions did not constitute a "substantial burden" on religious exercise as defined by the statute. By choosing not to review the ruling, the Supreme Court left that interpretation and the outcome in place. What People Are Saying U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a dissenting opinion: "Before allowing the government to destroy the Apaches' sacred site, this Court should at least have troubled itself to hear their case." Wendsler Nosie Sr. of Apache Stronghold told the Associated Press: "We will never stop fighting—nothing will deter us from protecting Oak Flat from destruction." What Happens Next The federal government may proceed with the transfer of Oak Flat to the mining company, barring new legal challenges or legislative intervention. Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@
