Apache Stronghold v. United States (No. 24-291)
Summary
This document is a dissenting opinion by Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, regarding the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in the case of Apache Stronghold v. United States. The case concerns the planned destruction of Oak Flat, a sacred site for Western Apaches, due to a land exchange authorized by Congress that would allow mining operations. The dissent argues that the Ninth Circuit's decision, which upheld the land transfer, is deeply flawed and warrants Supreme Court review because it misinterprets the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and infringes upon the Apaches' religious freedom.
Expected Effects
The denial of certiorari means the Ninth Circuit's ruling stands, allowing the land transfer to proceed. This will likely result in the destruction of Oak Flat and prevent the Apache tribe from practicing religious ceremonies at the site. The decision could also set a precedent that weakens religious freedom protections, particularly in cases involving government land disposition.
Potential Benefits 2/5
- Potential for increased copper production, which could benefit industries reliant on copper.
- Economic gains for the mining company, Resolution Copper, and its shareholders.
- Possible short-term job creation in the mining sector.
- The government receives other parcels of land in exchange.
- Fulfillment of a congressional mandate.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Permanent destruction of a sacred site central to Western Apache religious practices.
- Potential weakening of RFRA protections for religious freedom, especially for Native American tribes.
- Damage to the environment, including potential water contamination and habitat loss.
- Disruption of Apache cultural heritage and traditions.
- Erosion of trust between the government and Native American tribes.
Constitutional Alignment 2/5
The case raises questions about the balance between governmental power and religious freedom, particularly concerning the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The dissent argues that the Ninth Circuit's decision undermines RFRA by creating an exception for government land disposition, potentially conflicting with the intent of Congress to protect religious exercise. The government's actions also raise concerns about treaty obligations with Native American tribes.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to citizens. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).