(CN) — A coalition of Apache and other Indigenous people in Arizona plan to take their fight against the destruction of an Apache holy site to the U.S. Supreme Court, after a federal appeals court ruled Friday to allow the planned construction of a copper mine in Arizona.
An en banc Ninth Circuit panel upheld for the second time on Friday the denial of preliminary injunction against an ownership transfer of the Oak Flat from the federal government to a private mining company that plans to swallow the site in a copper mine nearly two miles wide. Apache Stronghold, on behalf of the San Carlos Apache Tribe, requested the injunction, claiming the action violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
"Oak Flat is like Mount Sinai to us. Our most sacred site where we connect with our Creator, our faith, our families, and our land," Wendsler Nosie, former chairman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe, said in a statement. "Today’s ruling targets the spiritual lifeblood of my people, but it will not stop our struggle to save Oak Flat. We vow to appeal to the Supreme Court.”
Located in the Tonto National Forest and known to Apache people as Chi’chil Bildagoteel, the Oak Flat is host to the Apaches’ most sacred religious gatherings, which cannot be held anywhere else.
Apache Stronghold — dedicated to the protection of indigenous holy sites — sued the government and the federal Forest Service in January 2021 over the potential transfer, challenging the Forest Service’s final environmental impact statement on the action.
The land has been in the trust of the federal government since the Treaty of Santa Fe in 1852. It was declared off limits to mining in 1955, but a 1971 renewal of that law left an exception — if it’s sold to a private entity, mining can occur.
More than 40 years later, Congress authorized a land transfer to Rio Tinto and BHP Billington Mining companies, two parent companies of Resolution Copper, the company planning to build the mine.
The Stronghold was denied a temporary restraining order, later appealing that decision to a Ninth Circuit panel in February 2021. The panel ruled 2-1 against the restraining order in June 2022, but the circuit agreed to rehear the argument in a rare en banc panel of 11. The expanded panel heard arguments again in March 2023.
It took nearly a year for 11 judges to come to the same decision as before in a 6-5 ruling in favor of the government.
Resolution Copper celebrated the decision for the economic potential of the mine.
“There is significant local support for the project, which has the potential to supply up to one quarter of U.S. copper demand, add up to $1 billion a year to Arizona’s economy, and create thousands of local jobs in a region where mining has played an important role for more than a century,” Resolution Copper President Vicky Peacey said in a statement to Courthouse News. “As we deliver these benefits to Arizona and the nation, our dialogue with local communities and Tribes will continue to shape the project as we seek to understand and address the concerns that have been raised, building on more than a decade of government consultation and review.”
In 2020, a Rio Tinto iron mining project in Australia destroyed two rock shelters inhabited by indigenous people for 46,000 years. Opponents of the Oak Flat mine fear similar consequences for the Apache holy land.
U.S. Circuit Judge Daniel Collins, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote on behalf of the en banc majority that Apache Stronghold failed on all of its claims.
The Ninth Circuit ruled that the government’s transfer of publicly-owned land can’t violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because it would have no “tendency to coerce” the Apache people “into acting contrary to their religious beliefs,” nor does the elimination of public land deny them equal rights enjoyed by any other citizens.
For those reasons, Collins wrote, the land transfer doesn’t “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.”
Apache Stronghold also argued that the Sante Fe Treaty of 1852 — which promised protection and resources to the Apaches— required the government to hold the land in trust and not release it to private ownership. But the Ninth Circuit found the general statements of a peace treaty were subordinate to Congress’ statutory obligation to approve the transfer.
In a dissenting opinion, five judges — led by Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Mary Murguia, a Barack Obama appointee — argued that the majority’s definition of “substantial burden" is far too narrow. They said that land transfer is a substantial burden because it “oppresses or restricts” the Apaches ability to practice their religious ceremonies.
Apache Stronghold has 90 days to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which accepts less than 2% of cases submitted to it.
The Department of Justice didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment.
Follow @JournalistJoeAZ
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
GOP sues Nevada over late mail-in ballots May 3, 2024 -
