In a contentious legal battle, the Western Apache group, Apache Stronghold, has re-ignited their efforts to prevent the approval of a copper mine at Oak Flat, a revered sacred site located within the Tonto National Forest in Arizona. This area, known to the Apache as Chi’chil Biłdagoteel, holds significant spiritual value as it is considered a vital corridor to the Creator and a focal point for sacred ceremonies that have been conducted by various tribes for over a thousand years.
The crux of the conflict lies in a legislative decision from 2014, wherein Congress authorized a land exchange through an appropriations rider that would transfer the Oak Flat campground into the hands of Resolution Mining, a private company. Resolution Mining plans to tap into one of the world’s largest underground copper deposits partially situated beneath Oak Flat.
The Apache Stronghold has mounted a legal challenge asserting that such an exchange infringes upon their First Amendment rights and contravenes the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. They argue that the mining operation would decimate Oak Flat, thereby nullifying their ability to practice their religion in a manner that constitutes a “substantial burden” under RFRA. This has formed the basis of their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Apache Stronghold v. United States.
Previously, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled against the Apache Stronghold, referencing a 1988 Supreme Court decision that allowed Congress to allocate public lands sacred to Indigenous tribes for commercial development, in this instance, timber. The court found that while the land exchange might “significantly interfere” with religious practices, it did not “coerce” the Apache into forsaking their religious beliefs. Moreover, the 9th Circuit interpreted RFRA as not extending to public lands under government holdings.
The federal government and Resolution Mining maintain that the 9th Circuit’s ruling respects both the legislative intent behind RFRA and the historical precedence affirming federal land-use rights over tribal religious claims. They argue that the legislative process that led to the 2014 appropriations bill tacitly exempted the Oak Flat land exchange from RFRA provisions by subsequent Congressional actions.
The outcome of this legal conflict is yet to be determined, with the Supreme Court now tasked with deciding whether to uphold or overturn the 9th Circuit’s decision. This case not only tests the boundaries of religious freedom protections under RFRA but also the intricate balance between Indigenous rights and economic development on federally managed lands.