Supreme Court Upholds Copper Mining Land Transfer in Arizona

Categories: Arizona Breaking NewsArizona State News

The Oak Flat area is a site of cultural significance for Indigenous tribes in Arizona.

News Summary

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from Apache Stronghold, allowing a controversial land transfer for a copper mining project at Oak Flat, Arizona. This decision validates earlier rulings that favor Resolution Copper, which plans to access significant copper deposits that could benefit the local economy. However, the ruling raises concerns about the impact on Apache cultural rights and the environment, as Indigenous groups claim the site holds spiritual significance.

Arizona – The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from Apache Stronghold, a grassroots organization aiming to halt a controversial copper mining project at Oak Flat, Arizona. This decision affirms the previous lower court rulings that permit the transfer of land from the Tonto National Forest to the mining company Resolution Copper.

Resolution Copper has highlighted that Oak Flat is home to the second-largest copper deposit in the world, estimated to yield about 40 billion pounds of copper throughout the mine’s operational lifetime. The project promises to significantly boost Arizona’s economy, potentially generating $1 billion annually and creating thousands of jobs in adjacent mining communities. The company, a subsidiary of international mining giants Rio Tinto and BHP, envisions the mine becoming one of the largest in the United States.

This ruling follows a contentious legal battle over the land transfer, which has been under scrutiny since a congressional-approved land swap in 2014. Under this agreement, 3.75 square miles of forest land are set to be exchanged with eight parcels owned by the mining company. The Trump administration’s U.S. Department of Agriculture conducted an environmental review, allowing the land swap just before leaving office. However, in a more recent development, the Biden administration withdrew this environmental review for further consultation with Native American tribes.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had previously permitted the transfer by a narrow vote of 6-5, dismissing claims about violations of religious freedoms. Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed dissent regarding the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the appeal, calling it a “grievous mistake.” Both Gorsuch and Justice Clarence Thomas acknowledged the historical significance of Oak Flat to the Apache people. The site is deeply revered in Apache culture, containing ancient oak groves and plants crucial to ceremonial practices, and Apache Stronghold contends that the land transfer infringes on their members’ religious rights as protected by the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Wendsler Nosie Sr., a prominent figure within Apache Stronghold, characterized the Supreme Court’s ruling as a “heavy blow.” However, he vowed that the fight to safeguard Oak Flat would persist, emphasizing the land’s spiritual importance to the Apache tribes. Various religious organizations, including the Presbyterian Church and the Episcopal Church, have also expressed their support for Apache Stronghold in this conflict.

The litigation surrounding Oak Flat highlights a broader struggle between Indigenous rights and commercial interests in resource extraction. The land, designated for federal government ownership, complicates the tribal claims under earlier treaties dating back to 1852. The construction plans for the mine entail employing block cave mining techniques, expected to result in a crater nearly two miles wide and around 1,000 feet deep, which threatens to obliterate significant ceremonial sites for the Apache people.

Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the case due to potential conflicts of interest stemming from his stock ownership in BHP, one of the major stakeholders in Resolution Copper. With this recent Supreme Court ruling, the future of Oak Flat and its sacred lands for the Apache people remains contentious, as the debate over the land’s use and cultural significance continues into the third decade.