The Supreme Court wrapped up its latest term by denying justice to Native Americans in the case of Apache Stronghold. By opting not to intervene, the court allowed foreign mining companies to exploit the sacred Apache site, Chí’Chil Biłdagoteel, also known as Oak Flat, turning it into a massive crater for copper extraction. This decision echoes a long history of erasure and colonization, and sends a troubling message to Indigenous communities worldwide.
What’s particularly disheartening is not just the ruling itself but the failure of those who could have acted. Interestingly, the three liberal justices, typically seen as allies to Indigenous peoples, did not join Justices Gorsuch and Thomas in defending the rights of native religious practices. This case was not an outlier; it was a critical examination of whether the First Amendment protections apply universally or only to the dominant faiths.
Chí’chil Biłdagoteel represents much more than just a piece of land. It embodies the spiritual heritage of the Western Apache. Ceremonies are held there, the native language is preserved, and it’s a vital connection to their creator. For years, it received protection—until 2014, when mining lobbyists covertly inserted a midnight amendment into a defense bill, essentially handing over the land to Rio Tinto, a subsidiary of BHP, both of which are among the largest mining corporations globally. Their aim? To create a giant mine that would transform sacred sites into immense pits.
In response, the Apache’s spiritual leader and their grassroots supporters filed a lawsuit claiming that the destruction of Oak Flat would violate their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Unfortunately, after four years, justice remained elusive. In 2024, the 9th Circuit Court rejected their claims in a narrow 6-5 vote, asserting that reducing Oak Flat wouldn’t impinge on their religious freedoms. All judges siding with the mining interest were Republicans, while Democratic appointees criticized the ruling as a significant error.
The Supreme Court had a chance to rectify this mistake but chose not to act, despite clear precedents favoring religious freedoms in other contexts. Just recently, they sided with parents who opposed gay and transgender content in schools (Mahmoud v. Taylor), arguing it infringed on their faith. Yet, they declined to hear the case concerning the destruction of a sacred Indigenous site.
To be fair, Justices Gorsuch and Thomas opposed this inaction, labeling it a “significant mistake.” Gorsuch, known for his knowledge of Indian law, rightly noted that the court should have at least considered hearing the Apache’s case before allowing the destruction of their sacred site.
Even more troubling is the silence from the progressive justices. Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson could have formed a majority but chose not to. Their absence is not only painful; it’s a missed opportunity. If the courts are expanding religious freedoms, progressive justices should leverage that to protect Indigenous traditions, rather than solely relying on constitutional arguments.
The Apache people are now urging the court to reconsider their stance in light of the Mahmoud case. Their argument suggests that reading books also falls under the umbrella of religious freedom, especially if it results in erasing the foundation of their beliefs.
The Supreme Court is reviewing their case, but battles continue in lower courts. This week, the 9th Circuit temporarily halted governmental plans to transfer Oak Flat to mining operations. This ruling offers some protection for sacred sites and allows various lawsuits, including those from Apache representatives, to proceed until Oak Flat’s fate is decided.
However, this issue transcends Oak Flat. It raises a critical question: do Indigenous religions warrant equal legal recognition? Are we going to perpetuate a cycle of exploitation disguised as bureaucracy, or will we confront this challenge with moral clarity and resolve?
As someone who advocates globally for Indigenous rights, I see this case as a crucial test for the American legal system’s integrity. If the U.S. claims to uphold ideals like religious freedom and justice, these principles must extend not just to those in power but also to the original inhabitants of this land.
The court still has the chance to amend its course. The implications are significant, and the world is indeed watching.
