The United States Supreme Court made a contentious decision on Tuesday, choosing not to review a dispute over a land swap that would allow a mining company to operate on a sacred Indigenous site. The move has sparked criticism from conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas.
The dispute stems from a 2014 law that enabled a land transfer between Resolution Copper, a mining company, and the federal government. This transfer would give Resolution Copper control over Oak Flat, a site in Arizona considered sacred by the San Carlos Apache Tribe.
The legal challenge was brought forth by the San Carlos Apache Tribe, along with other local and environmental groups, who argue that the transfer of land would have a devastating impact on the sacred site and the surrounding environment.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to take up the case has been met with disappointment and frustration from Justice Gorsuch and Justice Thomas. In a strongly-worded dissent, Justice Gorsuch accused the majority of ignoring the tribe’s religious rights and questioned the government’s authority to transfer land without proper consultation with the tribe.
In his dissent, Justice Thomas also expressed concern over the precedent this decision could set, stating that it could potentially limit the rights of Indigenous communities to protect their sacred sites in the future.
This dissent from two conservative Justices is notable, as it goes against the general trend of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority siding with corporate interests in similar cases.
The land swap at the center of this dispute has been a source of controversy for years. Resolution Copper has been seeking to develop the largest copper mine in North America on the site, which is estimated to hold billions of dollars worth of minerals.
The company argues that the land swap is necessary for economic growth and job creation, claiming that the mine would bring in millions of dollars in revenue and create thousands of jobs. However, opponents of the project argue that the economic benefits would come at a high cost, both culturally and environmentally.
The Oak Flat site is not only sacred to the San Carlos Apache Tribe, but it is also home to numerous archaeological and cultural resources. The proposed mine would involve the destruction of sacred sites, as well as the pollution of water sources and destruction of wildlife habitats.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to review the case means that the land swap will proceed, and Resolution Copper will be able to move forward with their mining project. This decision has been met with widespread disappointment and anger from Indigenous communities, as well as environmental and social justice groups.
The San Carlos Apache Tribe has vowed to continue their fight to protect Oak Flat, despite this setback. They have been supported by numerous allies, including members of Congress and environmental organizations, who have called for the protection of sacred sites and the rights of Indigenous communities.
This case highlights the ongoing struggle faced by Indigenous communities in the United States, who have been fighting for the protection of their sacred sites and the preservation of their cultural heritage. The Supreme Court’s decision is a blow to these efforts, but it has also brought attention to the need for greater respect and recognition of Indigenous rights.
As we continue to navigate complex issues of land use and resource development, it is crucial that we prioritize the protection of sacred sites and the rights of Indigenous communities. The Supreme Court’s decision may have been a setback, but it is also a call to action for all of us to stand in solidarity with Indigenous communities and work towards a more just and equitable future.
