3 Quick Takeaways:

1. Religious Rights at Risk: The San Carlos Apache Tribe claims a recent Ninth Circuit ruling undermines protections for sacred religious sites, posing an existential threat to Native American communities.
2. Sacred Ground for Copper: A copper mining project by Resolution Copper stands to take over Oak Flat, a spiritual site as vital to the Apaches as Mount Sinai is to many religious groups.
3. Supreme Court's Role Looms: The tribe urges the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the decision, which they argue violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and sets a dangerous precedent for all faiths

   Copper vs. Sacred Land: Apaches Fight to Save Oak Flat in Landmark Religious Rights Case

   [USA Herald - September 14, 2024] - The San Carlos Apache Tribe is in a race against time to protect Oak Flat, their holiest site, from being turned into a sprawling copper mine. Following a deeply divisive ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court, the tribe now looks to the U.S. Supreme Court to halt the federal government’s planned land swap with Resolution Copper, a joint venture between mining giants Rio Tinto and BHP. The decision, which has broader implications for religious freedom across the country, could reshape the future of sacred site protections for Native Americans and beyond.

   In a legal battle that links religion, land rights, and corporate power, the Apaches of Arizona’s San Carlos Reservation are fighting to save their sacred site, Oak Flat. Situated in the Tonto National Forest, Oak Flat has been a spiritual and cultural hub for generations of Apache people. The site is now under threat from a land transfer deal that would give 2,500 acres of tribal land to Resolution Copper in exchange for nearby federal land—potentially paving the way for one of the largest copper mines in North America.

   The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier this year in a split decision that the land swap did not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), effectively allowing the federal government to bypass significant protections for Native religious sites. The court’s decision has been a lightning rod for criticism, not only from Native American communities but from religious freedom advocates across the country.

   "If the federal government can destroy a sacred Native American site without thorough RFRA review, what's stopping them from doing the same to other places of worship—whether it's a cathedral or a mosque?" Samuel Lopez.

   The tribe’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court argues that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is not only a violation of religious rights but also an existential threat to Native cultures. "Oak Flat is our Mt. Sinai—the most sacred place where generations of Apache have come to connect with our Creator, our faith, and our land," said Dr. Wendsler Nosie Sr., a prominent leader in the fight to save Oak Flat.

   Despite these heartfelt pleas, the Ninth Circuit's en banc decision has set a precedent that has far-reaching consequences beyond Native American communities. The Apache Stronghold, the nonprofit group leading the legal fight, emphasizes that the ruling could extend to religious exercises on federal lands across the country. For example, the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization, were recently barred from holding their traditional mass at Poplar Grove National Cemetery in Virginia, marking a disturbing new chapter in religious freedom law.

   This conflict pits the federal government’s land use policies against centuries-old Native American religious traditions. Advocates for the tribe argue that the Ninth Circuit's ruling grants the government unchecked authority to repurpose sacred land for commercial use, jeopardizing the religious rights of minority groups in particular.

   The broader legal landscape surrounding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is also at stake. Passed in 1993, RFRA was designed to prevent the government from imposing undue burdens on religious practices. However, the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation appears to give the government significant leeway to override RFRA protections when it comes to federal land, where most Native American sacred sites are located.

   The case now heads to the Supreme Court, which has the potential to either uphold the Ninth Circuit’s ruling or reaffirm RFRA's application to Native American religious sites. Religious freedom groups from all corners of the nation are watching the case closely, as a ruling against the Apaches could endanger religious practices on federal land far beyond Arizona.

   Apache Stronghold is represented by Luke W. Goodrich, Diana Verm Thompson, and others from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, along with Erin E. Murphy of Clement & Murphy PLLC, Stephanie Hall Barclay of Georgetown Law, and Michael V. Nixon of Clifford Levenson.

   The U.S. government’s legal team includes Todd Kim, Katelin Shugart-Schmidt, and Joan M. Pepin from the DOJ’s Environment and Natural Resources Division.

   Resolution Copper is represented by Michael R. Huston, Christopher D. Thomas, and others from Perkins Coie LLP.

   The case is Apache Stronghold v. U.S. et al., case number 24A110, in the U.S. Supreme Court.