The Supreme Court has abandoned sacred Apache lands to mining companies, leading Justice Gorsuch to call it a “grave mistake” in a powerful dissent.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court declined to review a case involving the transfer of Oak Flat, sacred Apache land, to Resolution Copper for mining operations
- Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, issued a strong dissent, calling the decision a “grave mistake” that fails to protect religious freedoms
- The Ninth Circuit’s ruling claimed the land transfer doesn’t impose a “substantial burden” on religious exercise, despite Oak Flat’s central importance to Apache ceremonies
- The decision sets a concerning precedent for Native American religious rights and the protection of sacred sites on federal lands
- Apache Stronghold and tribal advocates vow to continue their fight to protect the sacred site from destruction
Supreme Court Rejects Apache Appeal, Putting Sacred Land at Risk
In a decision that has alarmed advocates for religious freedom and Native American rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a crucial case concerning Oak Flat, a site of profound spiritual significance to the Western Apache people. The Court’s refusal to intervene allows the federal government to transfer this sacred land to Resolution Copper, a mining company that plans extensive operations that would effectively destroy the site. This decision comes despite passionate objections from tribal representatives who have fought for years to protect land they consider essential to their religious practices and cultural identity.
The case, brought by Apache Stronghold, a coalition of Apaches and supporters, sought to prevent the land transfer by arguing that it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the transfer did not impose a “substantial burden” on religious exercise – a decision that now stands without Supreme Court review. Critics argue this interpretation creates a dangerous precedent that fails to recognize the fundamental nature of land-based Indigenous spiritual practices and effectively privileges certain forms of religious expression over others.
Gorsuch’s Powerful Dissent Highlights Court’s Failure
Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, issued a rare and forceful dissent to the Court’s decision not to hear the case. Their dissent underscores growing concerns about the judiciary’s commitment to protecting Native American religious freedoms and signals that even conservative justices see troubling implications in the lower court’s reasoning. Gorsuch’s dissent pointedly criticizes his colleagues for refusing to consider a case that meets all the typical standards for Supreme Court review, including conflicting interpretations among lower courts and issues of vital national importance.
“Respectfully, that is a grave mistake. 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,” stated by Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
Gorsuch’s dissent illustrates the disconnect between legal interpretations of religious freedom and the lived reality of Indigenous communities. He made a compelling comparison, suggesting that the planned destruction of Oak Flat should be viewed in the same light as the demolition of a historic cathedral would be for Christians. This analogy highlights the fundamental issue at stake: whether our legal system truly protects religious freedom equally for all Americans, or whether certain religious traditions receive greater protection than others based on their alignment with Western concepts of worship.
Broader Implications for Native American Rights
The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear this case has far-reaching implications for Native American religious rights and land protections nationwide. It effectively endorses a troubling precedent set by the Ninth Circuit that makes it nearly impossible for Native communities to successfully challenge government actions that destroy sacred sites on federal land. This interpretation creates a significant imbalance in how religious freedom protections are applied across different faith traditions in America, undermining the principle of equal treatment under law that should be fundamental to our judicial system.
“Before allowing the government to destroy the Apaches’ sacred site, this Court should at least have troubled itself to hear their case,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
For conservatives who value religious liberty protections, this case presents a troubling contradiction. While religious freedom has been a central concern in many recent Supreme Court cases, the Oak Flat decision suggests these protections may not extend equally to all faith traditions – particularly those that don’t align with Judeo-Christian practices. The decision also raises questions about government overreach and the proper balance between economic development and the protection of fundamental constitutional rights, issues that have long been of concern to conservative legal scholars and advocates.
Apache Community Vows to Continue Fight
Despite this significant setback, Apache Stronghold and its supporters have made it clear they have no intention of abandoning their fight to protect Oak Flat. Tribal representatives emphasize that their connection to this sacred land transcends legal battles and that they will pursue every available avenue to prevent its destruction. This determination reflects the profound spiritual and cultural significance of Oak Flat, which has been a site of religious ceremonies and cultural gatherings for countless generations of Apache people, making its preservation a matter of existential importance to the community.
“We will never stop fighting—nothing will deter us from protecting Oak Flat from destruction.” – Wendsler Nosie Sr., former San Carlos Apache tribal chairman
The Oak Flat controversy exemplifies a larger pattern of tension between Indigenous sovereignty and federal land management policies. Without intervention from the Supreme Court, the federal government can now proceed with transferring the land to Resolution Copper, unless new legal challenges or legislative actions emerge to prevent it. For many observers, this case represents a critical test of America’s commitment to honoring its historical and moral obligations to Native peoples – a test that, so far, our institutions appear to be failing in the eyes of tribal advocates and religious freedom experts alike.
