Apache Stronghold v. United States

Background\n\nOak Flat is a place Western Apaches consider sacred, where they have long held ceremonies that they say cannot take place elsewhere. Apache Stronghold, a nonprofit, sued to stop a planned land transfer to Resolution Copper, a mining company formed by Rio Tinto and BHP, because the company’s mining plan would create a huge crater and permanently damage the site. The group brought its suit under a federal law called RFRA, which bars the government from substantially burdening religious exercise unless narrowly necessary to meet a compelling interest.\n\nReasoning\n\nA divided Ninth Circuit panel and then an en banc court considered whether the government’s planned transfer and mining would “substantially burden” Apache religious exercise. The en banc court said preventing access to a site can be a substantial burden but created a special rule for government decisions disposing of federal land, holding such disposals impose a burden only when the government coerces people to violate their beliefs or discriminates among religions. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, leaving that Ninth Circuit rule in place.\n\nReal world impact\n\nBecause the Supreme Court denied review, the lower-court ruling stands while the government moves forward with a final environmental review and the land transfer. That outcome permits imminent mining activity that federal officials say will permanently damage Oak Flat and will, according to the Apaches and the government’s own review, prevent the tribe from holding ceremonies tied uniquely to that place.\n\nDissents or concurrances\n\nJustice Gorsuch dissented from the Court’s decision to deny review, arguing the Ninth Circuit’s rule is legally doubtful, conflicts with other circuits, and raises urgent consequences for sacred sites and religious freedom.\n\n