Justice Neil Gorsuch condemns the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the desecration of sacred Apache land as a “grave mistake,” exposing the federal government’s disregard for Native American religious rights in favor of corporate mining interests.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court declined to review a case involving the transfer of Oak Flat, sacred Apache land, to a mining company, effectively allowing mining operations to proceed
- Justice Neil Gorsuch issued a strong dissent, comparing the potential destruction of Oak Flat to demolishing a historic cathedral
- The Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling that the land transfer does not violate religious freedom laws creates a dangerous precedent for Native American sacred sites
- Apache Stronghold and tribal advocates vow to continue fighting against what they see as government-sanctioned religious discrimination
Supreme Court Abandons Protection of Native American Sacred Land
In a troubling decision that undermines religious freedom for Native Americans, the Supreme Court has refused to hear a case challenging the federal government’s transfer of Oak Flat, a sacred Apache site in Arizona, to Resolution Copper mining company. The decision allows the federal government to proceed with transferring this culturally significant land for commercial exploitation, despite its profound religious importance to the Western Apache people who have conducted ceremonies there for generations. This rejection highlights the ongoing battle between corporate interests and the preservation of indigenous cultural heritage that continues to plague our nation.
The case was brought by Apache Stronghold, a coalition of Apaches and other advocates fighting to protect the sacred site from being converted into a massive copper mine. Resolution Copper, a joint venture between mining giants Rio Tinto and BHP, plans to develop a mine that would create a crater nearly two miles wide and 1,000 feet deep—effectively destroying the site. The mining operation would not only physically destroy the sacred land but would also prevent Apache tribal members from practicing their religious ceremonies that have taken place there for centuries, representing a direct assault on their First Amendment rights.
Conservative Justices Stand Up for Religious Liberty
In a powerful dissent that speaks to true conservative values of religious freedom and limited government overreach, Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, condemned the Court’s refusal to hear the case. Their dissent underscores how the Court’s inaction represents a failure to uphold its constitutional duty to protect religious liberty for all Americans, not just those with majority religious views. This principled stand by two of the Court’s most respected conservative justices highlights the inconsistency in how religious freedom protections are applied to different communities in America.
“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’s dissent articulated a compelling comparison, asking Americans to imagine if the government decided to transfer land containing St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York to a mining company that would demolish it. Such an action would rightfully trigger outrage and legal challenges based on religious freedom grounds. Yet when it comes to Native American sacred sites, the judicial system appears willing to look the other way, revealing a troubling double standard in how religious liberties are protected under the current interpretation of the law.
The Ninth Circuit’s Flawed Reasoning
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, known for its liberal activism, ruled that the land transfer did not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) because it did not impose a “substantial burden” on religious exercise. This tortured legal reasoning effectively claims that completely destroying a sacred site used for religious ceremonies for generations somehow doesn’t substantially burden religious practice. The absurdity of this position underscores why many conservatives have long criticized the Ninth Circuit for its ideologically-driven decisions that often ignore constitutional protections when they don’t align with progressive priorities.
“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
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling creates a dangerous precedent that effectively strips Native Americans of religious freedom protections under RFRA. By declining to review this case, the Supreme Court has missed a crucial opportunity to correct this injustice and ensure that religious liberty protections apply equally to all Americans, regardless of their cultural background or how they worship. This decision represents another example of how the federal government consistently fails to honor its obligations to Native American tribes, prioritizing corporate interests over constitutionally protected rights.
The Fight Continues
Despite this setback, Apache Stronghold and its supporters have vowed to continue their fight to protect Oak Flat from destruction. The resilience of the Apache people in the face of centuries of oppression and broken promises from the federal government serves as an inspiration to all Americans who value religious liberty and the preservation of cultural heritage. Their determination highlights the ongoing struggle of Native Americans to protect their sovereignty and sacred lands from government overreach and corporate exploitation that continues to threaten their way of life.
“We will never stop fighting—nothing will deter us from protecting Oak Flat from destruction.”
This case exemplifies the broader pattern of government disregard for treaties and agreements with Native American tribes, and the exploitation of their lands for profit. As conservative Americans who value constitutional rights and limited government intrusion, we should be deeply concerned about this federal overreach that threatens religious liberty and property rights. The fight to protect Oak Flat is not just about preserving a sacred site for one tribe—it’s about upholding the principle that religious freedom in America truly applies to all faiths, not just those that align with mainstream or politically favored beliefs.
