The Supreme Court just rejected a religion case. At least 2 of the justices aren't happy about it
Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented to the denial of certiorari in the case about mining on sacred land, calling it 'a grave mistake.' His dissent was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Justice Samuel Alito may also have objected to the denial, but he took no part in its consideration.
The Supreme Court's rejection of the case means that a lower court ruling against a group of Native Americans fighting to block a mining project will remain in place.
In his dissent, Gorsuch criticized his colleagues for underrating the significance of the religious freedom questions that were raised.
'Just imagine if the government sought to demolish a historic cathedral on so questionable a chain of legal reasoning. 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.
Apache Stronghold v. United States centers on a proposed mining project in the Oak Flat area of Arizona, which is located about 70 miles east of Phoenix.
The Western Apaches use Oak Flat for a variety of sacred ceremonies, including a coming-of-age ritual for young women, as Gorsuch pointed out in his dissent.
In recognition of these ceremonies, the federal government protected portions of Oak Flat from mining for more than a century after taking control of it during 19th century wars.
But then in 2014, Congress cleared the way for the land to be transferred to a private mining company by passing a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that had a last-minute rider about Oak Flat added on.
In 2021, the federal government published an Environmental Impact Statement on Oak Flat, signaling that mining was soon to begin in the area. That's when Apache Stronghold filed a federal religious freedom lawsuit to seek to block the land transfer and mining project. The group argued that destroying Oak Flat would violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The act, which is also known as RFRA, prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening a sincere expression of faith unless there is no better way to fulfill a compelling government goal.
Apache Stronghold argued that the mining project would destroy the Western Apaches' 'spiritual lifeblood,' Gorsuch wrote.
While Apache Stronghold's lawsuit delayed the mining project, it didn't succeed in securing long-term protections for Oak Flat. The group lost at the district and circuit court level, where judges said mining does not represent a substantial burden under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
In September, the group asked the Supreme Court to overturn those decisions and rule that religious freedom law protects against mining on sacred land.
'Oak Flat is our Mt. Sinai — the most sacred place where generations of Apache have come to connect with our Creator, our faith, and our land,' explained Wendsler Nosie Sr. of Apache Stronghold in a press release at the time.
Several religious organizations, as well as Utah Sen. Mike Lee, filed Supreme Court briefs in support of Apache Stronghold in recent months.
In his dissent, Gorsuch criticized the Supreme Court for allowing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling against Apache Stronghold to stand.
He said that, at the very least, it hinged upon a controversial interpretation of how to apply the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in disputes involving government property and, at worst, it treated Native Americans much worse than Americans who are part of other, better-known faiths.
'Before allowing the government to destroy the Apaches' sacred site, this Court should at least have troubled itself to hear their case,' Gorsuch wrote.
As is typical, the justices who voted against hearing Apache Stronghold v. United States did not explain their decision to the public.
As a result of Tuesday's announcement, the federal government is free to move forward with its planned land transfer.
In April, the Trump administration announced that it may release the final Environmental Impact Statement on Oak Flat as soon as next month.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
7 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Jasmine Crockett Speaks Out After Dems Flee Texas—'Get Aggressive'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Texas Democratic lawmaker Jasmine Crockett has spoken out about the importance of being "aggressive" to win political battles like the fight over redistricting taking place in Texas. At an event in Phoenix, Arizona, hosted by progressive advocacy group MoveOn, Crockett spoke out after Democratic state lawmakers fled Texas on Sunday in an effort to stop a redistricting vote that would create a new Republican-approved congressional map. Why It Matters Republicans have slim majorities in Congress and traditionally, voters lean toward the party not in the White House in midterm elections. Therefore, Republicans are under pressure ahead of November 2026. Republicans have sought to redraw the districting map to bolster their chances in the upcoming election. It was thought the new map would give the party the opportunity to gain five seats in the midterms. But their political scheme was thwarted when more than 51 Texas Democrats traveled to Chicago to stop the vote, causing anger from critics and praise from political allies who accused Republicans of gerrymandering and voter suppression. Votes can only take place in the Texas legislature when two-thirds of the 150 members are present. Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett attends "Storytellers - Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett" at the Tribeca Festival in New York on June 13, 2025. Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett attends "Storytellers - Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett" at the Tribeca Festival in New York on June 13, 2025. Photo by Efren Landaos/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images What To Know When asked about her vision for the future of politics, Crockett said it was important to " be aggressive" to win political battles with the Republican Party. "I do want to be aggressive, because we're going to have to be aggressive because some of the things that have been broken such as some of our trade agreements, they may not come back," she said. She added that the U.S. "needs guardrails around the Supreme Court" to stop it from propping up President Donald Trump and to stop situations like those occurring in Texas and improve voting access. "I'm aggressive," she added. "So for me, I don't serve in the Senate, but I would get rid of the filibuster if it means that we can for voting rights because we don't get rights to repro. We don't get rights to healthcare. We don't get rights to education. We don't get any other rights if we don't have the ability to access the ballot box. So those are the things that I would do. I would get aggressive on the Supreme Court and I would get aggressive about making sure that we equalize this thing so that we can all access the ballot box." She added that she was "so inspired" by Texas Democrats. "Right before I got over here, my former colleagues from the Texas House, those Texas Democrats, decided to get the hell out of Texas," she said. "They decided to use whatever tools they could and breaking quorum is where they are at right now. And they didn't just do it by themselves. They went to Illinois where there is a governor that gives a damn. You see, this fight is going to take all of us." What People Are Saying Texas Governor Greg Abbott threatened in a letter to remove Democrats from the state's House of Representatives if they do not return by Monday afternoon: "Real Texans do not run from a fight. But that's exactly what most of the Texas House Democrats just did…rather than doing their job and voting on urgent legislation affecting the lives of all Texans, they have fled Texas to deprive the House of the quorum necessary to meet and conduct business." Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote on X, formerly Twitter: "Democrats in the Texas House who try and run away like cowards should be found, arrested, and brought back to the Capitol immediately. We should use every tool at our disposal to hunt down those who think they are above the law." Texas state Representative Gene Wu, chair of the House Democratic Caucus, in a statement: "This is not a decision we make lightly, but it is one we make with absolute moral clarity. We're not walking out on our responsibilities; we're walking out on a rigged system that refuses to listen to the people we represent." What Happens Next The Texas House cannot advance the redistricting bill or other legislative agenda items so long as Democrats deny quorum by staying out of state. Governor Abbott and Attorney General Paxton have indicated their intent to pursue civil penalties and possible arrests of absent Democrats. Meanwhile, redistricting issues are also brewing in other states. The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing a dispute over redistricting in Louisiana, and earlier this year overturned a lower court decision that ruled South Carolina's congressional map was unconstitutional.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Explainer-What happens next in the US court battle over Trump's tariffs?
By Jan Wolfe and Dietrich Knauth WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A federal appeals panel on Thursday appeared skeptical of U.S. President Donald Trump's argument that a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets gave him the power to impose tariffs. Regardless of how the court rules, the litigation is almost certainly headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Here is what you need to know about the dispute, which Trump has called "America's big case," and how it is likely to play out in the months ahead. WHAT IS THE CASE ABOUT? The litigation challenges the tariffs Trump imposed on a broad range of U.S. trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico. It centers around Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president the power to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies. Trump has said that trade imbalances, declining manufacturing power and the cross-border flow of drugs justified the tariffs under IEEPA. A dozen Democratic-led states and five small U.S. businesses challenging the tariffs argue that IEEPA does not cover tariffs and that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress, not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. A loss for Trump would also undermine the latest round of sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries that he unveiled late Thursday. Trump has made tariffs a cornerstone of his economic plan, arguing they will promote domestic manufacturing and substitute for income taxes. WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THE LITIGATION? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on Thursday in the case. The panel of 11 judges sharply questioned the government about Trump's use of IEEPA, but did not rule from the bench. The Federal Circuit has not said when it will issue a decision, but its briefing schedule suggests it intends to move quickly. Meanwhile, the tariffs remain in effect after the Federal Circuit paused a lower court's ruling declaring them illegal. WILL TRUMP'S TARIFFS BE BLOCKED IF HE LOSES IN COURT? A Federal Circuit ruling would almost certainly not end the litigation, as the losing party is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court. If the Federal Circuit rules against Trump, the court could put its own ruling on hold while the government appeals to the Supreme Court. This approach would maintain the status quo and allow the nine justices to consider the matter more thoroughly. The justices themselves could also issue an "administrative stay" that would temporarily pause the Federal Circuit's decision while it considers a request from the Justice Department for more permanent relief. IS THE SUPREME COURT LIKELY TO STEP IN? The Supreme Court is not obligated to review every case appealed to it, but it is widely expected to weigh in on Trump's tariffs because of the weighty constitutional questions at the heart of the case. If the Federal Circuit rules in the coming weeks, there is still time for the Supreme Court to add the case to its regular docket for the 2025-2026 term, which begins on October 6. The Supreme Court could rule before the end of the year, but that would require it to move quickly. HOW MIGHT THE SUPREME COURT RULE? There is no consensus among court-watchers about what the Supreme Court will do. Critics of Trump's tariffs are optimistic their side will win. They point to the Supreme Court's decision from 2023 that blocked President Joe Biden from forgiving student loan debt. In that ruling, the justices limited the authority of the executive branch to take action on issues of "vast economic and political significance" except where Congress has explicitly authorized the action. The justices in other cases, however, have endorsed a broad view of presidential power, especially when it comes to foreign affairs. CAN IMPORTERS SEEK REFUNDS FOR TARIFFS PAID? If Trump loses at the Supreme Court, importers are likely to seek refunds of tariffs already paid. This would be a lengthy process given the large number of anticipated claims. Federal regulations dictate that such requests would be first heard by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. If that agency denies a refund request, the importer can appeal to the Court of International Trade. There is precedent for tariff refund requests being granted. Since May, CBP has been processing refunds to importers who inadvertently overpaid duties because of tariff "stacking" — where multiple overlapping tariffs are applied to the same imports. And in the 1990s, after the Court of International Trade struck down a tax on exporters that was being used to finance improvements to U.S. harbors, the court set up a process for issuing refunds. That decision was upheld by both the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court. WOULD A COURTROOM DEFEAT UNRAVEL TRUMP'S TRADE DEALS? Trump has used the threat of emergency tariffs as leverage to secure concessions from trading partners. A loss at the Supreme Court would hamstring Trump in future negotiations. The White House, however, has other ways of imposing tariffs, like a 1962 law that allows the president to investigate imports that threaten national security. Trump has already used that law to put tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and those levies are not at issue in the case before the Federal Circuit. Some legal experts say a loss for Trump at the Supreme Court would not impact bilateral trade agreements the U.S. has already inked with other countries. Others say that the trade deals alone might not provide sufficient legal authority for taxes on imports and may need to be approved by Congress. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Los Angeles Times
36 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
The White House intends to slash the education safety net
Donald Trump has it in for public education. Don't be fooled by last week's release of DOE billions for the coming school year. Education Secretary Linda McMahon claimed that since the surprise decision in late June to withhold the funding, the government vetted all the programs to make sure they met President Trump's approval. In reality, the White House was inundated by protests from both sides of the aisle, from teachers, parents and school superintendents all over the country. A week earlier, 24 states had filed suit against the administration for reneging on already appropriated education funding. The reprieve will be temporary if the president has his way. Shuttering the Department of Education, and its funding priorities, was a marquee Trump campaign promise. Already, about 2,000 DOE staff members have been fired or quit under duress. That's half the agency's personnel. On July 14, the Supreme Court lifted an injunction against the firings as lawsuits protesting the firings work their way through the courts. In essence, the ruling gives Trump a green light to destroy the department by executive fiat now, even if the Supreme Court later decides only Congress has that power. The high court majority did not spell out its reasoning. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, deplored the 'untold harm' that will result from the ruling, including 'delaying or denying educational opportunities and leaving students to suffer from discrimination, sexual assault and other civil rights violations without the federal resources Congress intended.' McMahon touts what she considers her agency's 'final mission': ending federal funding for school districts that cannot prove that they have eliminated diversity, equity and exclusion initiatives, or what Trump calls 'critical race theory and transgender insanity.' The stakes are high: What's at issue is the withdrawal of nearly $30 billion in aid. The DEI threat rejects a 60-year bipartisan understanding — based on Title 1 of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act to the 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act — that Washington should invest federal taxpayer dollars in closing the achievement gap that separates privileged youth from poor and minority students and children living in poverty. Those funds support smaller classes, after-school programs and tutoring. Research shows that Title 1 can claim credit for disadvantaged students' improved performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress — NAEP — the nation's K-12 report card, which the administration is also targeting. The most innovative programs, including the Harlem Children's Zone preschool, charter schools and after-school and summer-vacation programs and one-on-one, face-to-face learning through Tutoring Chicago, have recorded especially dramatic results. Support for students with disabilities would also become history, along with the requirement that schools deliver 'free and appropriate education' to youngsters with special needs. That would have a disastrous impact on these students, historically dismissed as hopeless, because needs-focused special education can change the arc of their lives. In demanding that districts 'prove' they have eliminated DEI as a condition for receiving federal funds, McMahon claims that focusing exclusively on 'meaningful learning,' not 'divisive [DEI] programs,' is the only way to improve achievement. She's flat-out wrong. DEI initiatives, while sometimes over the top, have generally proven to boost academic outcomes by reducing discrimination. That's logical — when students feel supported and valued, they do better in school. Wiping out efforts designed to promote racial and economic fairness is a sure way to end progress toward eliminating the achievement gap. Clearly, the studies that show the gains made by DEI programs are irrelevant to an administration whose decisions are driven by impulse and ideology. Its threats to the gold standard test of American education, NAEP — an assessment that's about as nonpartisan as forecasting the weather — gives the game away. If you don't know how well the public schools are doing, it's child's play to script a narrative of failure. Tucked into Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a nationwide school voucher program, paid for by a 100% tax deduction for donations of up to $1,700 to organizations that hand out educational scholarships. There's no cap on the program, which could cost as much as $50 billion a year, and no expiration date. The voucher provision potentially decimates public schools, which will lose federal dollars. Since private schools can decide which students to admit and which to kick out, the gap between the haves and haves-less will widen. Students with special needs, as well as those whose families cannot afford to participate, will be out of luck. What's more, vouchers don't deliver the benefits the advocates promise. Studies from Louisiana, where 'low-quality private schools' have proliferated with the state's blessing, as well as the District of Columbia and Indiana, show that students who participate in voucher plans do worse, especially in math, than their public-school peers. Michigan State education policy professor Joshua Cowen, who has spent two decades studying these programs, reached the startling conclusion that voucher plans have led to worse student outcomes than the COVID pandemic. Vouchers 'promise an all-too-simple solution to tough problems like unequal access to high-quality schools, segregation and even school safety,' Cohen concludes. 'They can severely hinder academic growth — especially for vulnerable kids.' The defenders of public education are fighting back. Twenty states have gone to federal court to challenge the Department of Education's demand that they eliminate their DEI programs. 'The Trump administration's threats to withhold critical education funding due to the use of these initiatives are not only unlawful, but harmful to our children, families, and schools,' said Massachusetts Atty. Gen. Andrea Joy Campbell, announcing the lawsuit. The White House may well lose this lawsuit. But litigation consumes time, and the administration keeps finding ways to evade judicial rulings, sometimes with the help of the Supreme Court. It could be years before the judges reach final decisions in these cases, and by then the damage will have been done. That's why it is up to Congress to do its job — to represent its constituents, who have consistently supported compensatory education programs and special education programs in public schools, resisting the siren song of vouchers — and to insist that the administration obey the dictates of legislation that's been on the books for decades. Will a supine Congress rouse itself to protect public education? After all, that's what the rule of law — and public education — requires. David Kirp is professor emeritus at the Goldman School of Public Policy, UC Berkeley. He is the author of numerous books on education, including 'The Sandbox Investment,' 'Improbable Scholars' and 'The Education Debate.'
