Supreme Court declines to halt land transfer that would destroy sacred site for Western Apache
The Supreme Court declined Tuesday to halt a land transfer in Arizona that Western Apache people say will destroy a scared site in order to mine for copper.
The decision leaves in place a lower court ruling that allowed the transfer by the federal government to go forward.
Two conservative justices — Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — dissented. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the case.
'Just imagine if the government sought to demolish a historic cathedral on so questionable a chain of legal reasoning,' Gorsuch wrote in dissent. 'I have no doubt that we would find that case worth our time.'
'Faced with the government's plan to destroy an ancient site of tribal worship, we owe the Apaches no less,' he wrote. 'They may live far from Washington, D.C., and their history and religious practices may be unfamiliar to many. But that should make no difference.'
Congress approved the transfer of the federal property in the Tonto National Forest in 2014, and President Donald Trump initiated the exchange in the final days of his first term. The land includes a site known as Oak Flat, where native tribes have practiced religious ceremonies for centuries.
A non-profit sued the federal government, asserting that the transfer violated the First Amendment's free exercise clause and a law that requires courts to apply the highest level of scrutiny to any law that burdens religious freedom.
The Western Apache, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, argued the questions at the heart of the case were 'vitally important for people of all faiths.' An adverse decision, they said, would provide 'a roadmap for eviscerating' federal religious protections in other contexts.
'Many sacred Apache rituals will be ended, not just temporarily but forever,' the group told the Supreme Court.
The case arrived at the high court before Trump took power again in January. The Biden administration defended the decision in court papers, arguing that 'Congress has specifically mandated that Oak Flat be transferred so that the area can be used for mining.'
Lower courts, including the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled that the land transfer did not impose a substantial burden on religious exercise since it doesn't coerce or discriminate on the basis of religion.
But a federal district court in Arizona on May 9 barred the administration from moving forward with the transfer until the Supreme Court decided what to do with the appeal. US District Judge Steven Logan said the case 'presented serious questions on the merits that warrant the Supreme Court's careful scrutiny.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Donald Trump Scores Iran War Powers Win
The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate on Friday rejected a Democratic effort to limit President Donald Trump's authority to launch further military action against Iran-just hours after Trump said he was weighing additional airstrikes. The chamber voted 53–47 against the war powers resolution, which would have required the president to seek congressional approval for any new hostilities against Iran. Every senator cast a vote, but the tally remained open late into the evening. In a notable split, Democrat John Fetterman broke with his party to vote "no," while RepublicanRand Paul crossed the aisle to vote "yes." The vote came days after Trump ordered airstrikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend, escalating tensions amid Iran's conflict with Israel. Iran retaliated by firing missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar on Monday. Although Tehran and Tel Aviv agreed to a ceasefire on Monday, the Israel Defense Forces have since accused Iran of breaching that agreement and have threatened strikes on Tehran in response-an accusation Iran's military denies. The Senate's decision marks a clear victory for the White House and shows how much latitude both Republicans and some Democrats are willing to give Trump to take unilateral military action against Iran. The measure, sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, would have invoked the War Powers Act-the 1973 law designed to limit a president's authority to enter armed conflicts without congressional consent. It would have required the White House to notify lawmakers and secure approval from both the House and Senate before U.S. forces could take any additional military action against Iran. Many Democrats, and even some Republicans, argued that the White House should have sought congressional approval before authorizing last weekend's strike. They point out that the Constitution gives Congress-not the president-the power to declare war, and say the War Powers Act exists to stop presidents from sidestepping that responsibility. Under the Constitution, war powers are divided but not always clearly defined. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power "to declare war," "raise and support armies," "provide and maintain a navy," and "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." This means Congress has the explicit authority to decide when the U.S. goes to war. But the last time Congress formally declared war was World War II. Since then, military actions-from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq, Libya, and Syria-have typically been carried out under broad authorizations, U.N. resolutions, or purely at the president's discretion. At the same time, Article II, Section 2 names the president as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States." This gives the president broad authority to direct the military once it is in action. In 1973, after the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to rein in presidential war-making. It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and limits such deployments to 60 days-with a 30-day withdrawal period-unless Congress explicitly approves or declares war. Still, presidents of both parties have often argued that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, or they've simply ignored its requirements. During his first term, Trump twice vetoed measures passed under the War Powers Act, including one aimed specifically at restricting his ability to strike Iran. Congress wrestled with similar questions in 2011, when President Barack Obama ordered airstrikes on Libya without explicit approval, drawing criticism that he had exceeded his authority. This time, the Trump administration has enjoyed strong backing from Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. House Speaker Mike Johnson has gone so far as to argue that the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Republican leaders have accused Democrats of using the issue for political gain and say the president needs flexibility to respond to threats quickly. "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight," said Senator John Barrasso, the chamber's No. 2 Republican, insisting that "national security moves fast" and that requiring consultation with Congress could "prevent the president from protecting us in the future." But some Republicans disagree. Senator Rand Paul cited the framers' original intent to keep war-making powers in the hands of Congress. "Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that the executive is the branch most prone to war. Therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature," Paul said, explaining his rare break with his party. For its part, the Trump administration argues the president already has all the authority he needs. In a letter to Congress this week, Trump cited his constitutional powers as commander in chief and his responsibility for foreign policy, framing the Iran strike as an act of "collective self-defense of our ally, Israel." Republican Senator John Barrasso said on the Senate floor: "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight. National security moves fast. That's why our Constitution says: 'Give the commander in chief real authority.'" Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen said: "What would we have said if Iran or any other country had flown bombers over our country and struck our facilities? We would rightly call it what it was: an act of war." Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said: "War is too big an issue to leave to the moods and the whims and the daily vibes of any one person." Efforts to rein in Trump's military powers are also underway in the House, where similar measures have been introduced, but they face uncertain prospects in a Republican-led chamber unlikely to defy the White House. Related Articles Donald Trump Suffers Major Legal Blow: 'Grave Constitutional Violations'Exclusive: Democrat on How Trump's Tariffs Could Reshape Key Iowa RaceRepublican to Retire as Democrats Eye Potential House Seat: ReportsElon Musk Staffer 'Big Balls' Joining Social Security Administration 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Behind the Curtain: Unprecedented new precedents
Through silence or vocal support, House and Senate Republicans are backing an extraordinary set of new precedents for presidential power they may come to regret if and when Democrats seize those same powers. Why it matters: New precedents are exhilarating when you're in power — and excruciating when you're not. Here are 10 new precedents, all set with minimal GOP dissent: Presidents can limit the classified information they share with lawmakers after bombing a foreign country without the approval of Congress. Presidents can usurp Congress's power to levy tariffs, provided they declare a national emergency. Presidents can unilaterally freeze spending approved by Congress, and dismantle or fire the heads of independent agencies established by law. Presidents can take control of a state's National Guard, even if the governor opposes it, and occupy the state for as long as said president wants. Presidents can accept gifts from foreign nations, as large as a $200 million plane, even if it's unclear whether said president gets to keep the plane at the end of the term. Presidents can actively profit from their time in office, including creating new currencies structured to allow foreign nationals to invest anonymously, benefiting said president. Presidents can try to browbeat the Federal Reserve into cutting interest rates, including by floating replacements for the Fed chair before their term is up. Presidents can direct the Justice Department to prosecute their political opponents and punish critics. These punishments can include stripping Secret Service protections, suing them and threatening imprisonment. Presidents can punish media companies, law firms and universities that don't share their viewpoints or values. Presidents can aggressively pardon supporters, including those who made large political donations as part of their bid for freedom. The strength of the case in said pardons is irrelevant. Between the lines: Friday's Supreme Court ruling limiting nationwide injunctions — a decision widely celebrated by Republicans — underscores the risks of partisan precedent-setting. Conservatives sped to the courts to block many of President Biden's signature policies — and succeeded. But taking those broad injunctions off the table now means they'll also be unavailable the next time a Democratic president pushes an aggressive agenda. That future president will be able to keep implementing even legally shaky policies — just as Trump now can. What to watch: Trump previewed some of those policies at a celebratory press conference on Friday, saying the Supreme Court's ruling cleared the way for executive actions that had been "wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis." They include ending birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants, terminating funding for "sanctuary cities," suspending refugee resettlement, and blocking the use of federal funds for gender-affirming care. Axios Zachary Basu contributed reporting.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Attacks on Muslims flood mainstream after Mamdani win
Zohran Mamdani's victory in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary triggered a wave of Islamophobic attacks — including from sitting members of Congress — that once might have disqualified the perpetrators from public office. Why it matters: Openly racist rhetoric has become normalized at the highest levels of American politics. Islamophobic and antisemitic incidents both reached an all-time high in 2024, according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Anti-Defamation League, respectively. The mainstreaming of Islamophobic rhetoric in political discourse comes a decade after President Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" as part of his 2016 campaign. Driving the news: Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) urged the Justice Department to denaturalize and deport Mamdani, who was born in Uganda and became a U.S. citizen in 2018. Under federal law, denaturalization is an extreme measure typically reserved for cases involving fraud during the naturalization process. The other side: Mamdani, who would be the first Muslim mayor of New York, has spoken openly about the violent threats and hateful messages he's received throughout the campaign. He told MSNBC that he sees his victory as "an opportunity for me to introduce the fact that being Muslim is like being a member of any other faith." The big picture: The fractured media ecosystem — splintered into hyperpartisan echo chambers — has made the public shaming of racism less effective. Attacks that once would have drawn bipartisan outrage now circulate with impunity — especially on social media platforms, where hate can go viral. The baseless attempts to link Mamdani to Islamist terrorism could alarm some voters, especially amid rising antisemitism in a city that is home to the world's largest Jewish population outside of Israel. Yes, but: Some of Mamdani's loudest critics are already unpopular in New York, raising the possibility that their Islamophobic posts could backfire — and further galvanize his coalition into a history-making victory. Catch up quick: Mamdani, a 33-year-old democratic socialist, defeated former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo by assembling a young, multiracial coalition in one of the nation's largest and most diverse cities. That coalition included progressive Jewish voters in Manhattan, college-educated liberals in Brooklyn's Park Slope and working-class communities in Queens. Mamdani, currently serving in the New York State Assembly, is of Indian ancestry. He was born in Uganda and moved to New York at age 7. After his victory, MAGA activists and Republican lawmakers took to social media to attack Mamdani's faith, heritage and left-wing politics. "Zohran 'little muhammad' Mamdani is an antisemitic, socialist, communist who will destroy the great City of New York. He needs to be DEPORTED," Ogles posted on X. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) posted an AI-generated image of the Statue of Liberty wearing a black burqa. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) tied Mamdani's victory to what she called America's "forgetting" of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. What they're saying: "Wow. Just wow," James Zogby, co-founder of the Arab American Institute, told Axios after reviewing the posts. Zogby said Islamophobia is becoming more brazen because "there are no repercussions." "We see the same Islamophobia from the same bigots anytime a Muslim runs for public office," said Basim Elkarra, executive director of CAIR Action, the political arm of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "Now it's been normalized." Zoom out: Since Sept. 11, 2001, Muslim and Arab Americans have periodically been the targets of racist and Islamophobic political campaigns. In 2005, then Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) suggested the U.S. could "take out" Islamic holy sites if attacked by radical Muslim terrorists. In 2010, the proposed Park51 Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan — branded the " Ground Zero Mosque" by activist Pamela Geller, founder of Stop the Islamization of America — became a national campaign flashpoint. Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (R-Mich.), who became the first two Muslim women elected to Congress in 2018, have faced years of Islamophobic attacks from Republicans and conservative media. State of play: Muslim Americans have built broader, multiethnic coalitions and political alliances in recent years. "I don't think [Islamophobia] is going to fly this time," Zogby said. Elkarra echoed that view, saying Mamdani's popularity could help him withstand the wave of attacks he's likely to face. There are currently an estimated 3 to 4 million Muslim Americans in the U.S. Between the lines: Days before the primary, Mamdani became embroiled in controversy for declining to condemn the phrase "globalize the intifada" during a podcast with The Bulwark. Mamdani, a longtime critic of Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories, said the phrase represented to him "a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights." The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) responded by urging all New York City candidates — without naming Mamdani — to "disassociate themselves from and avoid using language that plays into antisemitic tropes." Calls to "globalize the intifada," the ADL said, invoke a decades-old history of attacks on the Jewish people and amount to "an act of incitement that encourages violence against Jews." The bottom line: Mamdani has condemned antisemitism and promised to be a mayor for all New Yorkers — one who will be laser-focused on the city's affordability crisis.
