Wendsler Nosie Sr., a member of Apache Stronghold, said in a statement the fight would continue.
Apache Stronghold said tribal members’ religious rights were violated both under the Constitution’s First Amendment and a federal law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Apache Stronghold’s lawsuit also contained a claim under the 1852 treaty, but that issue is not before the Supreme Court.
The court’s 6-3 conservative majority regularly backs religious rights in cases that often involve claims brought by Christians.
Various religious groups, including the Presbyterian Church and the Episcopalian Church filed briefs urging the Supreme Court to take the case.
WASHINGTON — In a major case that pitted business interests against religious rights, the Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a last-minute appeal from Native Americans attempting to block a massive copper mining project in Arizona that would demolish a sacred site used for tribal worship.
The nonprofit organization Apache Stronghold filed an appeal, arguing that the Resolution Copper mine would violate the religious rights of its members by obliterating Oak Flat, the site in question, and the court rejected the appeal.
The project is now expected to proceed after the Trump administration recently declared its support for it.
According to a statement from Resolution Copper’s general manager, Vicky Peacey, “extensive consultation” with tribes has already resulted in notable project modifications.
“Continuous communication will continue to shape the project,” Peacey continued. “..”.
Nosie Wendsler, Sr. The battle will go on, according to a statement from an Apache Stronghold member.
“Although this ruling is a severe setback, our fight is far from over. As we continue to fight in the courts, we implore Congress to act decisively to end this injustice,” he continued.
Justice Samuel Alito, who is conservative, did not take part, according to the court order. Why wasn’t stated.
Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, both conservative justices, stated that they would have taken up the case.
In a dissenting opinion, Gorsuch, who has previously supported Native Americans, stated that it was a “grievous mistake” to ignore the challenge and implied that the court would have taken a different course of action if the claim had been made by Christians.
Imagine if a historic cathedral was to be demolished by the government using such dubious legal justifications. I am confident that we would find that case worthwhile,” he continued. “We owe the Apaches no less in light of the government’s proposal to demolish an old place of tribal worship. “.”.
The main topic of discussion is a 2014 law that Congress passed, which gave Resolution Copper, a joint venture between Rio Tinto and BHP, ownership of the land instead of the federal government.
According to Resolution Copper, the mine may provide about 25% of the country’s copper supply, which is highly sought after for electric cars and renewable energy projects.
According to Apache Stronghold, the First Amendment of the Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a federal law, both infringed upon the religious rights of tribal members.
Western Apaches, a group of Native Americans that includes several tribes, including the San Carlos Apache Tribe, which is based on a nearby reservation, have been using Oak Flat for many years. Located roughly 70 miles east of Phoenix, Oak Flat is part of the Tonto National Forest.
The San Carlos Apache Tribe’s attorneys wrote in court documents supporting the appeal that “Oak Flat lies within the tribe’s ancestral territory and is central to traditional Apache religion as the home of Apache deities and the only place where Apaches can practice unique ceremonies.”.
According to Apache Stronghold, the location serves as “a direct corridor to the Creator” and is home to spiritual beings known as the Ga’an. Sweat lodge ceremonies are held there to commemorate boys’ transition into manhood, and the multi-day “Sunrise Ceremony” honors girls’ transition into women.
According to an environmental analysis, if the mine is constructed, sites used for different rituals will be destroyed, and the land will sink, forming a massive crater that is nearly two miles across.
Following the 9th U.S. Court in San Francisco, the case made its way to the Supreme Court. S. The Circuit Court of Appeals decided earlier this year that the land transfer did not “substantially burden” the ability of tribe members to exercise their religious rights, and it narrowly ruled against Apache Stronghold. The same conclusion had previously been reached by a district court judge.
Important aspects of the case include the fact that the land in question was transferred by an act of Congress and that it belonged to the federal government rather than any of the tribes.
Midway through the 19th century, the United States first seized control of the territory. When it signed a treaty with Apache chiefs in 1852, it promised to safeguard tribal interests; however, like other treaties with tribes, the government fell short of its responsibilities.
The Supreme Court is not considering the claim made by Apache Stronghold in their lawsuit under the 1852 treaty.
Religious rights are consistently upheld by the court’s conservative 6-3 majority in cases that frequently involve Christian claims.
The fact that the Apache case involved Native Americans and attracted the interest of influential parties keen to see the mining project through to completion made it unique.
Then-Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar urged the court not to hear the case in court documents filed prior to President Donald Trump’s inauguration. She stated that although the government respects the tribe’s religious beliefs, “Congress has specifically mandated that Oak Flat be transferred so that the area can be used for mining.”. “..”.
“There is no precedent for concluding that the government can violate religious rights by making decisions about its own land,” she continued.
Nonetheless, Apache Stronghold had some powerful allies of its own, including legal organizations like religious rights organization Becket that have won cases at the Supreme Court on behalf of conservative Christians. The Episcopalian Church and the Presbyterian Church were among the religious organizations that submitted briefs pleading with the Supreme Court to hear the case.
