Gorsuch, Thomas dissent as Supreme Court declines to take up Apache challenge to copper mine
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to take up a challenge to a land swap enabling mining at a sacred indigenous site, garnering pushback from conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas.
A 2014 law enabled a land transfer between mining company Resolution Copper and the federal government, allowing the miner to take control of a site called Oak Flat in Arizona, which is sacred to the Western Apache.
A group called Apache Stronghold, which says it represents Apaches, other Native peoples, and non-Native allies, appealed the case to the Supreme Court, asking it to reverse a Ninth Circuit decision on religious freedom grounds.
The high court declined to take up the case on Tuesday without explaining its decision. However, Gorsuch issued a dissent, joined by Thomas.
'For centuries, Western Apaches have worshipped at Chí'chil Biłdagoteel, or Oak Flat. They consider the site a sacred and 'direct corridor to the Creator,'' Gorsuch wrote. ' Now, the government and a mining conglomerate want to turn Oak Flat into a massive hole in the ground.'
'Before allowing the government to destroy the Apaches' sacred site, this Court should at least have troubled itself to hear their case,' he added.
Apache Stronghold said in its petition that Oak Flat 'is the site of religious ceremonies that cannot take place elsewhere' including ceremonies for boys entering manhood and girls entering womanhood.
For the court to take up a case, it needs at least four votes in favor of doing so. It's not clear whether any other justices voted with Gorsuch and Thomas, though Samuel Alito recused himself.
In its own filing, Resolution Copper argued that the court should not have take up the case because the land exchange was authorized by Congress and because Apache Stronghold is a nonprofit 'with no religious claim of its own and thus no standing' to bring the case.
Resolution Copper is a joint venture between mining companies Rio Tinto and BHP.
Zach Schonfeld contributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
12 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
US Supreme Court to take up venue dispute between Michigan, Enbridge in Line 5 suit
The U.S. Supreme Court will review whether Enbridge Energy properly removed a case to federal court that was filed against it by the state of Michigan. Enbridge's appeal seeks a federal court venue for a years-long fight over the future of the Line 5 oil pipeline through the Straits of Mackinac. The case was listed Monday as one of several the nation's highest court would consider over the next few months. The Supreme Court's eventual decision in the case could determine whether a pending state court case deciding the future of the line should be moved to a federal courtroom, where laws are largely more favorable to Enbridge's efforts to keep the pipeline open. Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judges Richard Griffin, Amul Thapar and John Nalbandian ruled in June that Enbridge had missed a procedural window for filing to remove the case to federal court. The case was filed in state court in 2019, but Enbridge didn't try to remove it to federal court until 2021 - long past a 30-day deadline for removal, the judges said. Enbridge is challenging that decision in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the Sixth Circuit's decision clashes with determinations made by other courts of appeals in similar cases. "The Sixth Circuit's remand decision is in conflict with decisions from two other federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, which both held that there can be exceptions to the 30-day limit," said Ryan Duffy, a spokesman for Enbridge. "The Supreme Court review will resolve this conflict in the courts of appeals." Attorney General Dana Nessel's office on Monday said it remained "undeterred" in its commitment to protect the Great Lakes from the "devastating catastrophe" a Line 5 spill would create if the 72-year-old underwater pipeline were to leak into the waterway connecting Lakes Michigan and Huron. "The department's lawsuit is based on state claims and law, and it belongs before a Michigan court," said Kim Bush, a spokeswoman for the attorney general. An eventual decision from the U.S. Supreme Court could disrupt ongoing proceedings at the state level. Ingham County Circuit Court Judge James Jamo heard arguments in late January on the merits of Nessel's attempt to shut down the four-mile segment of Line 5 under the Straits of Mackinac. Both sides asked Jamo to dismiss the case in their favor. Five months later, Jamo has yet to rule on the motions. A finding by the U.S. Supreme Court that the case should be removed to federal court could eliminate Jamo's involvement. Over the past four years, Enbridge and the state have been engaged in litigation over which court - state or federal - should have jurisdiction over the cases. Enbridge has fought to keep the case in federal court, where federal law and federal regulatory authority would likely prevail. The state of Michigan has fought to anchor the case in state courts, where Michigan law and state regulators are likely to have priority. Nessel brought her case against Enbridge - the one being taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court - shortly after taking office in 2019. Enbridge attempted to move the case to federal court about two years later in 2021 - shortly after Canada invoked its transnational pipeline agreement with the U.S., and a federal district judge ruled that a separate, similar case filed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer must remain in federal court. It wasn't until after that decision that Enbridge turned its attention back to Nessel's case and moved to bump it to federal court. The company has argued U.S. District Judge Janet Neff's 2021 decision in Whitmer's case had constituted new and pertinent action that restarted a 30-day clock for removal that otherwise would have ended in July 2019. But the three Sixth Circuit judges disagreed, arguing the same facts that led to a prompt removal of Whitmer's case to federal court in 2020 were also present in Nessel's case in 2019. "While we appreciate the difficulty of navigating complicated doctrines and applying them to unique facts under time constraints, that is what § 1446(b) requires," Griffin wrote, referring to the 30-day deadline for removal. "And Enbridge showed that it could make these arguments under a tight deadline - it timely filed its notice of removal (and amended notice of removal) articulating these theories within 30 days of its receipt of the complaint in the governor's case." Enbridge's Line 5 oil pipeline, particularly the segment beneath the Straits of Mackinac, has long been a source of controversy, with environmental groups voicing concerns about the safety of the line and the catastrophic effects of an oil spill at the nexus of Lakes Huron and Michigan. Nessel's 2019 suit sought to shutter the line as a public nuisance and Whitmer, about a year later, filed her own suit seeking to support the administration's revocation of an easement for the pipeline. Enbridge has argued the pipeline is safe and that the state has no jurisdiction over its continued operation. Enbridge says authority over the pipeline instead lies with the federal government on three fronts: the Pipeline Safety Act; a 1977 transit pipeline treaty between the U.S. and Canada that prevents disruptions to the line; and foreign affairs policy. Aside from the state court case, Enbridge also is suing Whitmer in federal court over its efforts to revoke Line 5's 1953 easement through the Straits of Mackinac, effectively closing the line that transports about 540,000 barrels of light crude oil and natural gas liquids a day. Enbridge signed an agreement with the state of Michigan in 2018 that promised to build a more than $500 million tunnel beneath the Straits to house a new segment of Line 5 and assuage worries about the prospect of the crude oil and natural gas line spilling into Lakes Huron and Michigan. The project has been held up for five years by permitting and litigation delays. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers currently is considering some of the last permits Enbridge needs to move forward with tunnel construction. The corps is expected to issue a decision in the fall. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
17 minutes ago
US Rep. Dusty Johnson announces he's entering race to become South Dakota governor
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. -- South Dakota's lone member of the U.S. House, Republican Dusty Johnson, announced Monday that he will run for governor next year, potentially facing off against the incumbent governor. 'We have challenges, but our state has the foundation, the work ethic and the values we need to become even better,' he said at a Sioux Falls hotel, citing priorities of cutting property taxes, combating drugs and addiction and making college and tech schools more affordable. Johnson has served as South Dakota's only congressman since 2019, succeeding Kristi Noem's congressional tenure, and has taken moderate stances during his time in Washington. He has supported antitrust legislation and opposed the Respect for Marriage Act, which codified the Supreme Court's federal recognition of gay marriage. He will have served eight years in the House at the end of his current term. He sometimes joined a minority of Republicans in voting against President Donald Trump, including when he voted to override Trump's veto of a measure that revoked his declaration of an emergency at the southern border. He was later one of 35 House Republicans who voted to establish a commission to investigate the Jan. 6 Capitol riots. 'The U.S. House can be frustrating, but let's be honest, being governor of South Dakota is going to be frustrating sometimes, too,' Johnson said. 'That's just the nature of the beast.' 'This is not an easy area to serve,' he said. 'Our country, our state, we face real problems.' He told supporters that U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson and President Donald Trump look to him 'to help bridge the divide of a rowdy and colorful Republican House.' Now the 48-year-old aims to become the first elected governor since Noem, who used her time in Pierre to build a national profile and draw attention to the small-population Midwest state. Noem has since become Trump's secretary of Homeland Security, leaving her position in January which was filled by the current governor, Larry Rhoden. Johnson is entering what could be a crowded Republican primary next June, competing against state Rep. Jon Hansen, an Aberdeen businessman who championed a landowner movement against a carbon capture pipeline. Johnson may also be challenged by Rhoden, though the latter has not yet announced a gubernatorial campaign. No Democrats have announced plans to run for governor, a post that Republicans have held since 1979. Rhoden, a rancher who was Noem's lieutenant governor for six years, became governor in January during the state's legislative session. He has been traveling South Dakota visiting towns and businesses and touting economic development, with plans to visit Lemmon on Monday. South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley has announced plans to seek Johnson's congressional seat. Johnson first entered public office when he was elected to be a public utilities commissioner in 2004 and became the youngest commissioner in the nation at age 28. He later served as chief of staff for South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard. ___
USA Today
30 minutes ago
- USA Today
Supreme Court will hear major GOP challenge to campaign spending limit
Republicans say that because of the limits, big donors have turned to `super PACs' that act as `shadow parties.' Elon Musk contributed $238.5 million to a super PAC that helped elect President Trump. WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court will take up the regulation of money in politics in a case that could lead to the overturning of a 2001 decision limiting how much political parties can spend on advertising and other messaging in coordination with a federal candidate. The court on June 30 agreed to hear a challenge from Republicans − including Vice President JD Vance − to a federal regulation the Trump administration says it can't defend. "The government should not restrict a party committee's support for its own candidates," said South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott and North Carolina Rep. Richard Hudson, the heads of the campaign arms of Senate and House Republicans. Democrats said the First Amendment hasn't changed since 2001, and neither has the need to prevent corruption by limiting coordinated expenditures. "But the Republican Party has never made peace with those limits," Marc Elias, a lawyer for the Democratic Party, told the Supreme Court. The justices are likely to hear arguments in the fall and hand down a decision next year. The GOP argues the law and the facts have changed since the Supreme Court last considered the issue. As a result, they said, political parties have been weakened and leading donors have turned to 'super PACs' that act as 'shadow parties,' hurting the political system. "Right now, the parties are significantly regulated in how much they can work with their candidates while wealthy individuals can spend tens of millions of dollars through super PACs," said Richard Pildes, a constitutional law expert at New York University School of Law. Elon Musk contributed $238.5 million to one of the super PACs that helped elect President Donald Trump. Democrats are on the other side of the issue right now because the party thinks it's better off if political parties are more constrained because their candidates are able to raise a lot of money on their own, partly through the internet, Pildes said. 'But over the longer run, there's no reason to think freeing up the parties in these ways would be to the advantage of one party or the other," he said. Related: Elon Musk contributed more than $250 million to 2024 campaign groups backing Donald Trump The case was initiated by Vance when he was a senator, along with former Rep. Steve Chabot, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee. The challenge is part of longstanding debate over how to balance free speech rights with preventing corruption. Restrictions on how much parties can spend in direct coordination with a candidate were first limited by Congress in 1971. The Supreme Court previously said the restrictions are allowed to prevent donors from evading limits on how much they can contribute to candidates. But Republicans argue other Supreme Court decisions since then have narrowed the reasons Congress can restrict campaign spending and have led to virtually unlimited spending by super PACs. In addition, Congress has amended the campaign finance laws to allow more coordinated spending in some areas, such as presidential nominating conventions. The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the challenge, saying their hands were tied by the high court's 2001 decision. 'Even when the Supreme Court embraces a new line of reasoning in a given area and even when that reasoning allegedly undercuts the foundation of a decision,' Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote for the appeals court, 'it remains the Court's job, not ours, to overrule it.' Contributing: Sarah Wire.
