Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch blasts colleagues for “grave mistake” in refusing to hear the Apache case that allows destruction of the sacred Oak Flat site for copper mining.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court declined to review a case involving the transfer of Oak Flat, sacred Apache land, to Resolution Copper mining company
- Justice Neil Gorsuch issued a scathing dissent, joined by Justice Thomas, calling the decision a “grave mistake” that threatens religious freedom
- The Ninth Circuit Court previously ruled that destroying the sacred site did not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
- Indigenous leaders vow to continue fighting to protect their sacred lands despite this significant legal setback
- The decision sets a troubling precedent for government authority to transfer or destroy Native American religious sites
Supreme Court’s Controversial Decision on Oak Flat
In a decision that has alarmed religious freedom advocates and Indigenous rights groups, the Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from the Apache Stronghold coalition seeking to prevent the federal government from transferring Oak Flat, a sacred Apache site in Arizona, to a copper mining company. The land transfer would allow Resolution Copper to develop a massive underground copper mine that would eventually collapse and destroy the site that Western Apache people have used for centuries for religious ceremonies, prayer, and coming-of-age rituals.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, issued a blistering dissent against the majority’s decision to deny certiorari. Their opposition highlights a growing concern that the Court is selectively applying religious freedom protections, potentially leaving Indigenous spiritual practices vulnerable to government interference while more mainstream religions receive robust protection.
Gorsuch’s Powerful Dissent
In his sharply worded dissent, Justice Gorsuch emphasized the legal inconsistencies in the lower court’s ruling and the case’s national importance. The Ninth Circuit had previously determined that the complete destruction of a sacred site did not constitute a “substantial burden” on religious exercise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a finding that Gorsuch suggested defied both common sense and legal precedent.
“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,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Gorsuch drew a powerful comparison, noting that if the government planned to destroy St. Patrick’s Cathedral to build a highway, few would question whether that posed a substantial burden on religious exercise. He argued that the same principle should apply to the Apache sacred site, asserting that the Court had failed in its duty to treat all religious beliefs with equal dignity and respect under the law.
Implications for Indigenous Religious Rights
The Court’s refusal to hear the case allows the Ninth Circuit’s decision to stand, creating a troubling precedent that could make it harder for Native Americans to protect sacred sites on federal lands. The decision effectively endorses a narrow interpretation of RFRA that requires proof of government coercion or penalties to establish a “substantial burden” on religious exercise, ignoring the reality that physical destruction of a sacred site can completely prevent religious practice.
“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.
This decision comes amid growing national concerns about government overreach and selective application of religious freedom protections. While the Court has robustly defended religious liberty in cases involving Christian businesses and schools, critics argue this dismissal suggests a troubling double standard when it comes to Indigenous spiritual practices. The contrast is particularly stark given President Trump’s strong commitment to religious freedom throughout his administration and continuing into his current term.
Ongoing Resistance and Future Prospects
Despite this significant legal setback, Apache Stronghold and its allies have vowed to continue their fight through other legal and political channels. The group’s leader, Wendsler Nosie Sr., a former San Carlos Apache tribal chairman, expressed unwavering determination to protect the site from destruction. The coalition is exploring additional legal strategies and calling for legislative action to permanently protect Oak Flat from mining activities.
“We will never stop fighting—nothing will deter us from protecting Oak Flat from destruction,” said Wendsler Nosie Sr.
The Oak Flat controversy highlights the ongoing challenges faced by Indigenous communities as they struggle to maintain cultural and spiritual connections to ancestral lands now controlled by the federal government. For conservatives who value religious freedom and limited government intrusion, the case raises troubling questions about federal power and the selective application of First Amendment protections. As Justice Gorsuch powerfully argued, true religious liberty requires equal protection for all faith traditions, not just those with mainstream recognition or political influence.
