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.
Oak Flat lawsuit
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.
Oak Flat’s future
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.