Latest news with #ReligiousFreedomRestorationAct
Epoch Times
7 days ago
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Supreme Court Won't Hear Tribal Challenge to Copper Mine
The U.S. Supreme Court on May 27 turned away an appeal by Apache Indians who want to stop a copper mine from being developed on land they consider sacred. 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.
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.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Supreme Court refuses to hear Oak Flat case, clearing a roadblock for huge copper mine
The U.S. Supreme Court has turned down a request by grassroots group Apache Stronghold to hear a longstanding lawsuit over the fate of a huge copper mine at Oak Flat, east of Phoenix. The decision, handed down May 27, removes a major roadblock for Resolution Copper to move forward with the project, which would leave a gaping crater on land held sacred by Indigenous peoples. The high court has held hearings since December to debate if it would take the case, brought by opponents of the mine after losing a series of lower-court rulings. Justice Neil Gorsuch disagreed with the decision, with Justice Clarence Thomas in agreement. "Before allowing the government to destroy the Apaches' sacred site, this Court should at least have troubled itself to hear their case," Gorsuch said. "The Court's decision to shuffle this case off our docket without a full airing is a grievous mistake — one with consequences that will reverberate for generations." Wendsler Nosie, head of Apache Stronghold, said the group would "never stop fighting" to save Oak Flat from obliteration. "While this decision is a heavy blow, this struggle is far from over." Nosie called on Congress to reverse the 2014 vote to approve the land exchange. Victoria Peacey, Resolution's general manager, said she was pleased with the decision. '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. Oak Flat, or Chi'chil Biłdagoteel, "the place where the Emory oak grows," is at the heart of a struggle now entering its third decade. In December 2014, Congress authorized the U.S. Forest Service to trade the 2,200-acre site, currently a campground about 60 miles east of Phoenix, for parcels of environmentally sensitive private land owned by Resolution Copper, a subsidiary of British-Australian mining companies Rio Tinto and BHP. To obtain the copper ore, Resolution will use a method known as block cave mining, in which tunnels are drilled beneath the ore body, and then collapsed, leaving the ore to be moved to a crushing facility. Eventually, the ground will subside, leaving behind a crater about 1,000 feet deep and nearly 2 miles across where Oak Flat and its religious and environmental significance stands. The U.S. Forest Service published the final environmental impact statement and draft decision for the copper mine and land swap five days before the end of the Trump administration in January 2021. That set off a 60-day clock during which the land deal could have been finalized. Apache Stronghold filed its lawsuit in January 2021 in federal court to stop the land swap, citing religious rights guarantees under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Becket Law, a religious freedom nonprofit law firm, accepted the case and, along with a group of private attorneys and law professors, has represented Apache Stronghold, which includes Apache and other Native peoples and their allies. The Biden administration rescinded the environmental impact statement in March 2021 for further consultation with tribes. That consultation is ongoing. Resolution was granted permission to join the lawsuit in 2023. In 2024, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Apache Stronghold in a narrow 6-5 decision. That fall, the group appealed to the Supreme Court. In April, the Forest Service issued a 60-day notice that it would publish a new environmental impact statement June 16, which would reopen the 60-day process. Apache Stronghold asked the U.S. Federal Court in Phoenix to put a stop to the proceedings while the Supreme Court decided if it would take the case. That halt was issued May 9. Judge Steven P. Logan said that the stoppage would be in effect until one day after the high court turned Apache Stronghold down, whether to take the case or decide against the group. Peacey, the Resolution executive, said the project has "significant" community support and that it could become one of the largest copper mines in America, adding $1 billion a year to Arizona's economy, and creating thousands of local jobs in Arizona's Copper Triangle. "More than a decade of extensive consultation and collaboration with Native American Tribes and local communities has directly led to major changes to the mining plan to preserve and reduce potential impacts on Tribal, social, and cultural interests, and this ongoing dialogue will continue to shape the project." The San Carlos Apache Tribe, which filed its own lawsuit in 2021 to halt the land exchange on environmental concerns, also recently asked the federal court to stop the Forest Service's move to issue a new document until its litigation is complete. This is a developing story and will be updated throughout the day. Debra Krol reports on Indigenous communities at the confluence of climate, culture and commerce in Arizona and the Intermountain West. Reach Krol at Follow her on X @debkrol. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Supreme Court refuses Apache Stronghold Oak Flat copper mine case
E&E News
27-05-2025
- Business
- E&E News
Supreme Court rejects bid to stop Arizona copper mine
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a request from some members of the San Carlos Apache Tribe to block a massive proposed copper mine that they say will destroy a holy site in Arizona known as Oak Flat. A majority of the court denied the petition, but in a dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Neil Gorsuch said he would have granted the petition. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from considering the case. Gorsuch in his dissent called the decision a 'grave mistake' and said the 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. Before allowing the government to destroy the Apaches' sacred site, this Court should at least have troubled itself to hear their case.' Advertisement Apache Stronghold had called on the Supreme Court to block the project, arguing it would violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which protects their right to worship at the sacred site. The group, alongside the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, had warned the Resolution Copper mine would transform holy land into a 2-mile-wide and 1,100-foot-deep crater. The site — known as Oak Flat, or Chi'chil Biłdagoteel in Apache — consists of a vast grove of Emory oaks sacred to the tribe, where some go to pray, hold ceremonies and collect acorns for cooking. It's now part of the Tonto National Forest about 60 miles east of Phoenix, where the Forest Service currently has a campground. Resolution Copper, a joint venture between Rio Tinto and BHP, has countered that the campground would remain open and accessible for decades, and argued that the case is about the government's right to use national land to pursue national interests — a settled authority that the Supreme Court and other benches have consistently reaffirmed. The Trump administration has said it intends to complete an environmental impact statement for the mine. Once it's released, the land exchange that accelerates Resolution Copper must happen within 60 days. The land swap would allow the federal government to transfer thousands of acres of public land in Arizona, including the Oak Flat site, to the mining company, advancing construction of the copper mine. The deal was originally included in the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act and championed by the late Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona. Attorneys for Apache Stronghold brought their challenge to the Supreme Court after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to reconsider the case last year. The appeals court in a 6-5 ruling affirmed a lower court's denial of Apache Stronghold's request for a preliminary injunction against the government's transfer of the land to Resolution Copper.
USA Today
27-05-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
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.
