Latest news with #WesternApache
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
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.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Gorsuch, Thomas dissent as Supreme Court declines to take up Apache challenge to copper mine
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to take up a challenge to a land swap enabling mining at a sacred Indigenous site, garnering pushback from conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas. A 2014 law enabled a land transfer between mining company Resolution Copper and the federal government, allowing the miner to take control of a site called Oak Flat in Arizona, which is sacred to the Western Apache. A group called Apache Stronghold, which says it represents Apaches, other Native peoples, and non-Native allies, appealed the case to the Supreme Court, asking it to reverse a 9th Circuit decision on religious freedom grounds. The high court declined to take up the case Tuesday without explaining its decision. However, Gorsuch issued a dissent, joined by Thomas. 'For centuries, Western Apaches have worshipped at Chí'chil Biłdagoteel, or Oak Flat. They consider the site a sacred and 'direct corridor to the Creator,'' Gorsuch wrote. ' Now, the government and a mining conglomerate want to turn Oak Flat into a massive hole in the ground.' 'Before allowing the government to destroy the Apaches' sacred site, this Court should at least have troubled itself to hear their case,' he added. Apache Stronghold said in its petition that Oak Flat 'is the site of religious ceremonies that cannot take place elsewhere,' including ceremonies for boys entering manhood and girls entering womanhood. For the court to take up a case, it needs at least four votes in favor of doing so. It's not clear whether any other justices voted with Gorsuch and Thomas. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself. In its own filing, Resolution Copper argued the court should not have taken up the case because the land exchange was authorized by Congress and because Apache Stronghold is a nonprofit 'with no religious claim of its own and thus no standing' to bring the case. Resolution Copper is a joint venture between mining companies Rio Tinto and BHP. Zach Schonfeld contributed. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court declines to halt land transfer that would destroy sacred site for Western Apache
The Supreme Court declined Tuesday to halt a land transfer in Arizona that Western Apache people say will destroy a scared site in order to mine for copper. The decision leaves in place a lower court ruling that allowed the transfer by the federal government to go forward. Two conservative justices — Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — dissented. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the case. 'Just imagine if the government sought to demolish a historic cathedral on so questionable a chain of legal reasoning,' Gorsuch wrote in dissent. '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. '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.' Congress approved the transfer of the federal property in the Tonto National Forest in 2014, and President Donald Trump initiated the exchange in the final days of his first term. The land includes a site known as Oak Flat, where native tribes have practiced religious ceremonies for centuries. A non-profit sued the federal government, asserting that the transfer violated the First Amendment's free exercise clause and a law that requires courts to apply the highest level of scrutiny to any law that burdens religious freedom. The Western Apache, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, argued the questions at the heart of the case were 'vitally important for people of all faiths.' An adverse decision, they said, would provide 'a roadmap for eviscerating' federal religious protections in other contexts. 'Many sacred Apache rituals will be ended, not just temporarily but forever,' the group told the Supreme Court. The case arrived at the high court before Trump took power again in January. The Biden administration defended the decision in court papers, arguing that 'Congress has specifically mandated that Oak Flat be transferred so that the area can be used for mining.' Lower courts, including the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled that the land transfer did not impose a substantial burden on religious exercise since it doesn't coerce or discriminate on the basis of religion. But a federal district court in Arizona on May 9 barred the administration from moving forward with the transfer until the Supreme Court decided what to do with the appeal. US District Judge Steven Logan said the case 'presented serious questions on the merits that warrant the Supreme Court's careful scrutiny.'
The Hill
27-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Gorsuch, Thomas dissent as Supreme Court declines to take up Apache challenge to copper mine
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to take up a challenge to a land swap enabling mining at a sacred indigenous site, garnering pushback from conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas. A 2014 law enabled a land transfer between mining company Resolution Copper and the federal government, allowing the miner to take control of a site called Oak Flat in Arizona, which is sacred to the Western Apache. A group called Apache Stronghold, which says it represents Apaches, other Native peoples, and non-Native allies, appealed the case to the Supreme Court, asking it to reverse a Ninth Circuit decision on religious freedom grounds. The high court declined to take up the case on Tuesday without explaining its decision. However, Gorsuch issued a dissent, joined by Thomas. 'For centuries, Western Apaches have worshipped at Chí'chil Biłdagoteel, or Oak Flat. They consider the site a sacred and 'direct corridor to the Creator,'' Gorsuch wrote. ' Now, the government and a mining conglomerate want to turn Oak Flat into a massive hole in the ground.' 'Before allowing the government to destroy the Apaches' sacred site, this Court should at least have troubled itself to hear their case,' he added. Apache Stronghold said in its petition that Oak Flat 'is the site of religious ceremonies that cannot take place elsewhere' including ceremonies for boys entering manhood and girls entering womanhood. For the court to take up a case, it needs at least four votes in favor of doing so. It's not clear whether any other justices voted with Gorsuch and Thomas, though Samuel Alito recused himself. In its own filing, Resolution Copper argued that the court should not have take up the case because the land exchange was authorized by Congress and because Apache Stronghold is a nonprofit 'with no religious claim of its own and thus no standing' to bring the case. Resolution Copper is a joint venture between mining companies Rio Tinto and BHP. Zach Schonfeld contributed.
CNN
27-05-2025
- General
- CNN
Supreme Court declines to halt land transfer that would destroy sacred site for Western Apache
The Supreme Court declined Tuesday to halt a land transfer in Arizona that Western Apache people say will destroy a scared site in order to mine for copper. The decision leaves in place a lower court ruling that allowed the transfer by the federal government to go forward. Two conservative justices — Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — dissented. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the case. 'Just imagine if the government sought to demolish a historic cathedral on so questionable a chain of legal reasoning,' Gorsuch wrote in dissent. '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. '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.' Congress approved the transfer of the federal property in the Tonto National Forest in 2014, and President Donald Trump initiated the exchange in the final days of his first term. The land includes a site known as Oak Flat, where native tribes have practiced religious ceremonies for centuries. A non-profit sued the federal government, asserting that the transfer violated the First Amendment's free exercise clause and a law that requires courts to apply the highest level of scrutiny to any law that burdens religious freedom. The Western Apache, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, argued the questions at the heart of the case were 'vitally important for people of all faiths.' An adverse decision, they said, would provide 'a roadmap for eviscerating' federal religious protections in other contexts. 'Many sacred Apache rituals will be ended, not just temporarily but forever,' the group told the Supreme Court. The case arrived at the high court before Trump took power again in January. The Biden administration defended the decision in court papers, arguing that 'Congress has specifically mandated that Oak Flat be transferred so that the area can be used for mining.' Lower courts, including the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled that the land transfer did not impose a substantial burden on religious exercise since it doesn't coerce or discriminate on the basis of religion. But a federal district court in Arizona on May 9 barred the administration from moving forward with the transfer until the Supreme Court decided what to do with the appeal. US District Judge Steven Logan said the case 'presented serious questions on the merits that warrant the Supreme Court's careful scrutiny.'
