Supreme Court Allows Transfer of Native American Sacred Site for Mining
The Supreme Court has declined to block the transfer of Oak Flat, a site in Arizona sacred to Western Apache tribes, to a mining company. This decision upholds a lower court ruling and allows Resolution Copper to proceed with plans for a large copper mine. Native American groups have long fought to protect Oak Flat, arguing that the mine will destroy a site of deep cultural and religious significance. The legal battle highlights the ongoing tension between resource development and the preservation of Native American heritage.
Washington D.C. - In a significant ruling with implications for Native American rights and resource development, the Supreme Court has declined to intervene in the transfer of Oak Flat, a site in central Arizona considered sacred by the Western Apache and other tribes, to Resolution Copper, a joint venture of Rio Tinto and BHP. The decision leaves in place a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, paving the way for the company to proceed with plans to develop a large copper mine.
Oak Flat, known as Chichil Bidagoteel in Apache, is a 760-acre area of Tonto National Forest that has been used for centuries by Native American tribes for religious ceremonies, gathering medicinal plants, and other cultural practices. The land was transferred to Resolution Copper as part of a 2014 land exchange authorized by Congress.
Native American groups, including the Apache Stronghold, have argued that the mine will destroy Oak Flat, violating their religious freedom and cultural heritage. They filed lawsuits to block the transfer, claiming that it infringes upon their First Amendment rights. Lower courts, however, sided with the government and Resolution Copper, arguing that the government has the right to manage federal lands.
The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case effectively ends the legal challenge. While the court did not comment on its reasoning, the denial of certiorari allows the land transfer to proceed. This decision is a blow to Native American groups who have been fighting to protect Oak Flat for years.
Resolution Copper has stated that it is committed to working with Native American tribes and minimizing the impact of the mine on cultural resources. However, Native American leaders remain skeptical, arguing that the destruction of Oak Flat is irreversible.
The case highlights the ongoing conflict between economic development and the preservation of Native American cultural heritage. The fate of Oak Flat raises questions about the balance between resource extraction, religious freedom, and the rights of indigenous peoples.
Oak Flat, known as Chichil Bidagoteel in Apache, is a 760-acre area of Tonto National Forest that has been used for centuries by Native American tribes for religious ceremonies, gathering medicinal plants, and other cultural practices. The land was transferred to Resolution Copper as part of a 2014 land exchange authorized by Congress.
Native American groups, including the Apache Stronghold, have argued that the mine will destroy Oak Flat, violating their religious freedom and cultural heritage. They filed lawsuits to block the transfer, claiming that it infringes upon their First Amendment rights. Lower courts, however, sided with the government and Resolution Copper, arguing that the government has the right to manage federal lands.
The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case effectively ends the legal challenge. While the court did not comment on its reasoning, the denial of certiorari allows the land transfer to proceed. This decision is a blow to Native American groups who have been fighting to protect Oak Flat for years.
Resolution Copper has stated that it is committed to working with Native American tribes and minimizing the impact of the mine on cultural resources. However, Native American leaders remain skeptical, arguing that the destruction of Oak Flat is irreversible.
The case highlights the ongoing conflict between economic development and the preservation of Native American cultural heritage. The fate of Oak Flat raises questions about the balance between resource extraction, religious freedom, and the rights of indigenous peoples.