The Supreme Court said no, but this legal battle lives on
A major mining project in Arizona remains on hold this month even after the Supreme Court declined to consider a faith-based plea to block it.
The justices said on May 27 that they wouldn't hear a religious freedom case aimed at preventing federal officials from transferring Oak Flat, a site that's sacred to the Western Apache, to Resolution Copper.
At first, that announcement seemed like the end of the road for the mining project's opponents.
But then on Monday, they secured a small but potentially significant victory in a federal court in Arizona in separate but related lawsuits on the future of Oak Flat.
According to Inside Climate News, one of the ongoing lawsuits was brought by the San Carlos Apache Tribe and argues that the land transfer would violate a treaty between the tribe and the government, as well as environmental and historic preservation laws.
The other lawsuit was brought by a group of environmental activists, who claim the government has failed to fully study the environmental impact of the proposed mining project.
In Monday's ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Dominic W. Lanza said the government can't transfer the land until at least 60 days after the publication of the Environmental Impact Statement on the mining project and promised to revisit the transfer during that 60-day period to consider implementing an injunction that would block it.
The battle over Oak Flat dates back to 2014, when Congress removed the federal protections that were preventing mining in the area, as the Deseret News previously reported.
That legal shift made it possible for the land to be transferred to a private company, although seven years passed with no major developments along those lines.
But then, in 2021, the federal government published an Environmental Impact Statement on Oak Flat, signaling that mining was soon to begin. That's when a group of Native Americans filed a religion lawsuit to block the land transfer, arguing that destroying Oak Flat would violate their religious freedom rights.
While the lawsuit, called Apache Stronghold v. United States, delayed the mining project, it didn't restore land protections. Apache Stronghold lost at the district and circuit court level, where judges said destroying Oak Flat would not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
With its May 27 announcement, the Supreme Court allowed those decisions to remain in place.
Justice Neil Gorsuch criticized the court's refusal to take up the case in a strongly worded dissent, which was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.
'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,' Gorsuch wrote.
Although the Supreme Court's announcement brought an end to the religious freedom case, it did not end the battle.
Two other lawsuits aimed at blocking the mining are ongoing, as Inside Climate News reported.
By ensuring that the land transfer won't happen before late August, Judge Lanza in Arizona created time for those lawsuits to move forward.
The mining project's opponents present the judge's move as significant, noting that they haven't given up hope.
'We are grateful that Judge Lanza has provided us an opportunity to be heard,' San Carlos Apache Tribe Chairman Terry Rambler said in a statement provided to the Deseret News.
But the mining project's supporters believe their plan is still on track.
'The court correctly found no legal basis for a preliminary injunction, and its order is consistent with prior decisions about this project at every level, including the Supreme Court's recent decision to deny further review in Apache Stronghold v. United States,' said Vicky Peacey, president and general manager of Resolution Copper, in a statement. 'The order simply gives the parties time to review the (Environmental Impact Statement) within the timeframe Congress directed for the land exchange. We are confident the project satisfies all applicable legal requirements.'
The statement is expected to be published by June 20, Inside Climate News reported. Once it's released, the 60-day countdown will start.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Republicans 'protect' kids by banning gender-affirming care. What about guns?
Editor's note: Letters to the editor reflect the views of individual readers. Scroll to see how you can add your voice, whether you agree or disagree, or click on this link to fill out the form. We welcome diverse viewpoints. There seems to be no limit to the growing Republican capacity for dishonesty and hypocrisy. They are all for "freedom" for almost any citizen to carry the AR-15 (which received glowing reviews in Vietnam for its lethality). Yet, if someone wants freedom Republicans interpret as "sexual," they're perceived as being "all in your face." Opinion: Tennesseans have different views on guns, but here's how we know solutions are possible Republicans claim they are "protecting" kids who are bullied and ostracized daily — by further ostracizing them. But protect them from a flood of firearms? Don't bother to General Skrmetti and Governor Bill Lee are slapping each other's backs because our Supreme "Free Vacations!" Court let them deny healthcare to trans kids. Yet the same kinds of healthcare are available to heterosexual kids if they "identify" as the right kind of person. The 'genital mutilation surgery' for minors was a scare tactic; it never happened. However, heterosexual girls can get breast surgeries with parental consent. You know, to help with their "identity." Any heterosexual kid can, for different conditions, get the same drugs that are part of gender-affirming care. This is a clear "equal protection" violation, proving the Supreme Court's right-wingers are actively biased. Republicans love to talk about "common sense," which is really just "things we've never questioned." Opinion: Tennessee Republicans can't run on their record. They're running against reality Biology shows that genetic and hormonal variations exist beyond the male/female division, despite "common sense." These variations expose the bigotry hidden behind the simplistic gender definitions that allow Skrmetti and Lee to comfortably deny the experts — and Carls, Nashville 37221 Agree or disagree? Or have a view on another topic entirely? Send a letter of 250 words or fewer to letters@ Include your full name, city/town, ZIP and contact information for verification. Thanks for adding to the public conversation. This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Protect kids by banning guns, not trans youth healthcare | Letters
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
"In sadness, I dissent": Sotomayor blasts conservative justices for upholding trans health care ban
The Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors on Wednesday. The 6-3 decision in United States v. Skrmetti lets stand a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for transgender minors. The law would still allow puberty blockers and other hormone care for cisgender minors, meaning someone assigned female at birth couldn't receive a prescription for testosterone, but someone assigned male at birth could. The three families and doctor who challenged the Tennessee law said that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by discriminating based on sex. Tennessee argued that the law is based on age and medical purpose, not sex. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts left the issue to the states: 'We leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' The decision sets a precedent for the 25 states that have bans on pediatric gender-affirming care. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority opinion, joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan. 'By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent,' Sotomayor wrote. Tennessee argued that the ban protects children from 'experimental' medical treatment, despite major U.S. medical and mental health organizations supporting gender-affirming care, saying it's backed by science and even medically necessary care that improves transgender youth's health and well-being.'Gender-affirming care is medically necessary for treating gender dysphoria and is backed by decades of peer-reviewed research, clinical experience, and scientific consensus,' Dr. Susan J. Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said in a statement. Tyler Hack, founder of the Christopher Street Project, said: 'There aren't words strong enough to describe how shameful, cruel, and morally corrupt this ruling is. Access to gender-affirming care is life-or-death.' 'The Supreme Court should know: this domino effect of suffering and more suffering is on their hands,' Hack said. The Trump administration is also eliminating the option for LGBTQ+ individuals who call the 988 Suicide Hotline to press 3 and connect with someone who specializes in LGBTQ+ mental health. Montana state Rep. Zooey Zephyr, the first transgender legislator elected in her state, addressed the ruling and 988 changes on Bluesky: 'These bastards want us all dead.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump says "maybe" he'll try to fire Fed chief Jerome Powell
President Trump suggested Friday he may try to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, calling the central bank leader a "Total and Complete Moron" for leaving interest rates steady. The president has been lashing out against Powell for months, criticizing the central banker — whom Mr. Trump appointed in his first term — for not lowering interest rates at a faster pace. It's unclear whether the president is legally allowed to fire Powell before his term ends in May 2026, and Mr. Trump said in April he has "no intention" of doing so. But in a post criticizing Powell on Friday, Mr. Trump floated the idea, writing: "Maybe, just maybe, I'll have to change my mind about firing him?" "But regardless, his Term ends shortly!" the president added. Any attempt to fire Powell would be legally contentious. Federal law and prior court precedent says members of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors, including the chair, can only be fired "for cause." The Supreme Court ruled last month that the Trump administration can fire members of other independent federal agencies — but specifically exempted the Fed, calling the central bank a "uniquely structured, quasi-private entity." Powell said last year he will not resign if Mr. Trump asks him to step down. The two met at the White House last month. Mr. Trump also called Powell a "dumb guy" in his Friday evening post. "I fully understand that my strong criticism of him makes it more difficult for him to do what he should be doing, lowering Rates, but I've tried it all different ways," Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social. "I've been nice, I've been neutral, and I've been nasty, and nice and neutral didn't work! He's a dumb guy, and an obvious Trump Hater, who should have never been there." The Fed declined to comment to CBS News. Why has Trump criticized Powell? Mr. Trump's issues with Powell hinge on the Federal Reserve's interest rate policies. The central bank's interest rate-setting committee, which is chaired by Powell, has kept its benchmark rate steady so far this year, after lowering it slightly from a two-decade high last year — following a series of rate hikes in 2022 and 2023 to quell inflation. Most recently, the committee opted against lowering rates earlier this week, drawing backlash from Mr. Trump. The decision comes with tradeoffs. High interest rates can slow down economic growth and make it more expensive for Americans to borrow money, which is why Mr. Trump wants cuts. But lowering interest rates too quickly could overheat the economy and cause inflation to spike yet again. While inflation has cooled off in recent years, it's still higher than the Fed's 2% annual target, and the Fed warns Mr. Trump's tariffs could push prices up. "Because the economy is still solid, we can take the time to actually see what's going to happen," Powell said earlier this week. Mr. Trump disagrees, nicknaming Powell "Mr. Too Late" and arguing that inflation is already low. On Friday, the president amped up his criticism, calling Powell a "numbskull" and suggesting the other members of the rate-setting Federal Open Monetary Committee "override" him. Mr. Trump also said Powell should lower interest rates immediately and just hike them again if inflation spikes — an idea that's at odds with the Fed's cautious strategy. "Don't say that you think there will be Inflation sometime in the future, because there isn't now but, if there is, raise the Rates!" wrote Mr. Trump. The attacks are a redux of Mr. Trump's first-term criticism. The president pushed back against Powell after the Fed hiked interest rates in 2018, but called Powell his "most improved player" for slashing rates during the 2020 pandemic. SpaceX Starship upper stage blows up Hurricane Erick approaches Mexico with destructive winds, major storm surge "Jaws" premiered 50 years ago, but it's a wonder it got made at all
