Supreme Court Just Made 'Grave Mistake,' Justice Neil Gorsuch Says
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
he U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a dispute over Apache sacred land on Tuesday, prompting Justice Neil Gorsuch to issue a dissent describing the denial as a "grave mistake."
The case, brought by the group Apache Stronghold, sought to prevent the federal government's planned transfer of Oak Flat, a site in Arizona sacred to the Apache, to a mining company.
Gorsuch argued that the Court should have agreed to hear the case, saying the lower court's decision "rests on questionable legal footing." The Court's order left intact a Ninth Circuit ruling that permitted the land transfer to proceed.
Why It Matters
The Supreme Court's decision has immediate and long-term consequences for Native American religious rights and land protection across the United States. Oak Flat has been revered by the Apache for generations, and its proposed transfer to mining company Resolution Copper has drawn condemnation from tribal leaders, religious liberty advocates and some lawmakers.
The ruling brings wider attention to the legal complexities surrounding Indigenous sacred sites, federal land management, and religious freedom protections under the First Amendment.
Without Supreme Court intervention, Native groups warn that their sacred lands may remain vulnerable to future government actions, prompting debate over the federal government's responsibility to safeguard Indigenous religious practices.
Members of the Apache and others who want to halt a copper mining project on federal land in Arizona gather outside U.S. District Court on May 7, 2025, in Phoenix. AP Photo/Matt York, File
What To Know
The Supreme Court denied review in Apache Stronghold v. United States , a case challenging the planned land transfer of Oak Flat (Chi'chil Biłdagoteel) to a private mining company for copper extraction. The Ninth Circuit previously ruled that the transfer did not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a federal law protecting religious exercise. The land is considered by Apache communities to be essential for ceremonies and spiritual practice.
Gorsuch's Dissent And Legal Reasoning
Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas , criticized the majority for declining to hear the case.
"Respectfully, that is a grave mistake," Gorsuch said. "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."
Gorsuch likened the site's destruction to the hypothetical demolition of a historic cathedral, arguing that the Court should not treat "unpopular religious beliefs" differently from more familiar ones.
Background On Oak Flat And The Dispute
Oak Flat is in the Tonto National Forest in Arizona and has been used for generations by the Western Apache for religious ceremonies. In 2014, Congress approved a land swap in which Resolution Copper would receive the site for mining.
Apache Stronghold, a nonprofit organization, sued to block the exchange, arguing that it would effectively destroy the Western Apache's ability to practice their religion at Oak Flat.
Ninth Circuit Ruling Upheld
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the land transfer did not violate the group's rights under the RFRA, determining that the government's actions did not constitute a "substantial burden" on religious exercise as defined by the statute. By choosing not to review the ruling, the Supreme Court left that interpretation and the outcome in place.
Victoria Peacey, the general manager of Resolution Copper, says the company is "pleased" that the Ninth Circuit's decision will stand.
"The Resolution Copper mine is vital to securing America's energy future, infrastructure needs, and national defense with a domestic supply of copper and other critical minerals," Peacey said in a statement sent to Newsweek .
What People Are Saying
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a dissenting opinion: "Before allowing the government to destroy the Apaches' sacred site, this Court should at least have troubled itself to hear their case."
Wendsler Nosie Sr. of Apache Stronghold told the Associated Press: "We will never stop fighting—nothing will deter us from protecting Oak Flat from destruction."
Victoria Peacey, the general manager of Resolution Copper, in a statement sent to Newsweek : "More than a decade of extensive consultation and collaboration with Native American Tribes and local communities has directly led to major changes to the mining plan to preserve and reduce potential impacts on Tribal, social, and cultural interests, and this ongoing dialogue will continue to shape the project."
What Happens Next
The federal government may proceed with the transfer of Oak Flat to the mining company, barring new legal challenges or legislative intervention.
Tags
Who is online
130 visitors
Treaties be damned, eh? Religion for those not "Christian" be damned, eh?
This is the life/action that we have had to live with for over 250 years - Constitution sez that treaties are the "Supreme Law of the Land"??
Not when it comes to Native Americans.
I became disgusted with the SCotUS when they reversed Roe vs Wade, then I considered them damned when they contradicted the basic precedent that "No man is above the law", so their trashing the rights of Native Americans is no surprise to me.