The supreme Court has declined to hear a religious challenge from the Apache regarding the construction of a large copper mine on Oak Flat, an area of untouched federal land in Arizona that members of the tribe consider sacred and irreplaceable.

The decision, which upholds a lower court’s ruling against the tribe members, is a significant setback for Apache Stronghold. This group has long contended that constructing the mine would violate their religious rights by permanently destroying a unique sacred site used for Apache religious ceremonies.

The U.S.Forest Service can now proceed with plans to issue a final environmental impact report. They will also hear a final round of public comment before deciding whether to transfer the land to resolution Copper, a joint venture between Rio Tinto and BHP Group, both multinational mining companies.

Wendsler Nosie Sr., an Apache elder and leader of the Apache Stronghold, stated that his group would continue to defend the land, located approximately 70 miles east of Phoenix. This includes further court battles challenging the mine and an appeal to Congress for intervention.

“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,stated that the company was pleased that the lower court’s decision would 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 added that the project has “significant community support” and “the potential to become one of the largest copper mines in

Legal and Community Reactions

The proposed mine is expected to be a 1.75-mile-wide, 1,000-foot-deep industrial crater.

(Paul Duginski / Los Angeles Times)

Resolution Copper has stated that it has collaborated closely with Native American advisors and has worked to avoid significant Apache sites in its planning, including the nearby Apache Leap. Vicky Peacey said that the company has been working for over a decade to “preserve and reduce potential impacts on Tribal, social, and cultural interests,” and will continue to do so.

Apache Stronghold requested that the Supreme Court hear the case after an 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit judges split 6-5 in favor of the federal government’s right to use its land as it chooses. Such divisions in circuit decisions often attract the attention of the high court, though not always.

Judge Daniel P. Collins, an appointee of President Trump, wrote the majority opinion. He stated that Apache Stronghold’s religious claims were not valid 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 against their beliefs, “discriminate” or “penalize” them, or deny them privileges given to other citizens.

He added 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 supported by four other Trump appointees and an appointee of President George W. Bush.

“We will never stop fighting – nothing will deter us from protecting Oak Flat from destruction.”

In his dissent, Gorsuch wrote that the 9th Circuit “encompasses approximately 74% of all federal land and almost a third of the nation’s Native American population.” He argued that its ruling, allowing the government to destroy a sacred native site on federal land, would now govern most, if not all, “sacred-site disputes” in the country moving forward.

He warned that this ruling would not only threaten native sites but also all religious sites on federal land,including manny 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.” He added that the court’s “refusal to halt the destruction is a tragic departure from its strong record of defending religious freedom.”