WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an appeal from Apaches fighting against a massive copper mining project on federal land in Arizona that they consider sacred.
The justices upheld lower court decisions that allow the transfer of a portion of the Tonto National Forest, known as Oak Flat, to the company Resolution Copper. The company plans to mine what it says is the second-largest known copper deposit in the world.
The Trump administration had already announced it would proceed with the transfer.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, in his dissenting opinion, called it a "grievous mistake" that the case was not taken up for review.
"In recognition of Oak Flat's significance, the government has long protected both the land and the Apaches' access to it," Gorsuch wrote, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. "No more. Now the government and a mining conglomerate want to turn Oak Flat into a massive hole in the ground."
The group Apache Stronghold, which represents certain members of the San Carlos Apache Tribe, argued that the land transfer would result in the destruction of the sacred site and a violation of their members' religious rights. For the Apaches in Arizona, Oak Flat - marked by ancient oak groves and traditional plants - is essential to their spiritual well-being.
We will never stop fighting - nothing will deter us from protecting Oak Flat from destruction," said Wendsler Nosie Sr. of Apache Stronghold. He called the Supreme Court's decision a "heavy blow," but appealed to Congress and vowed to continue the legal fight.
Another spokesperson for Apache Stronghold put it even more bluntly: "You took our land, our language, our children - and now you want to bury our gods under tons of dynamite. That is not progress. That is erasure."
This quote, spoken by an elder of the Apache Stronghold in a brief conversation with us, exemplifies what is at stake in Oak Flat: not resistance born of ownership, but of deep duty. A defense of the invisible - of what is heard, lived, believed. We will not just stay with this story - we will do everything we can to ensure that what is right remains right, and that a discarded morality does not once again prevail. That is not progress. That is erasure."
According to the U.S. Forest Service, an estimated 40 billion pounds (about 18 million metric tons) of copper could be extracted over the life of the mine. The project enjoys broad support in the nearby town of Superior and in other traditional mining communities in the region. The company estimates that the mine will contribute around $1 billion per year to Arizona's economy and create thousands of local jobs.
Victoria Peacey, General Manager of Resolution Copper, stated that the project could become one of the largest copper mines in the country. She emphasized that the company had made "major changes" to the mining plan to reduce the impact on indigenous tribes. Resolution Copper is a subsidiary of the international mining giants Rio Tinto and BHP.
Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the case, presumably because he owns BHP stock valued between $15,000 and $50,000, according to recent financial disclosures.
Congress approved a land exchange in 2014, in which Resolution Copper would receive 3.75 square miles (9.71 square kilometers) of forest land in exchange for eight parcels the company owns in Arizona. In the final days of the first Trump administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture completed the required environmental review to enable the land swap.
Apache Stronghold subsequently sued the federal government to stop the transfer. After President Joe Biden took office, the Department of Agriculture - which includes the Forest Service - initially withdrew the environmental review to conduct further consultations with Native American tribes.
The five dissenting judges called the decision a tragic error that would lead to "the complete destruction" of the sacred site. The Forest Service has already issued the required 60-day notice to reissue the environmental review. A judge had agreed in May to pause the transfer, but only until the Supreme Court issued its decision.
What is happening here is not just a legal procedure - it is a moral failure. Once again, a piece of living history is being erased, once again nature is being sacrificed to an industry whose benefits may look impressive on paper but are ethically hollow. The so-called land exchange may be legal - but it is not just. The Apaches receive no spiritual homeland in return, no trees, no rituals. They are given bureaucratic consolation in exchange for something irreplaceable. And while investors smell billions, a culture loses its heart.
This decision shows how weak institutions have become when it comes to not just recognizing but actually protecting indigenous rights. That the Supreme Court - the last bulwark of the Constitution - would shirk its responsibility here is telling of the state of a country that is selling off its memory for profit.