Oak Flat has been the location of Apache civilization “since before recorded history.” This tribe resides and worships on this Arizonian land, it is a central aspect to their daily life. Apaches hold strong religious beliefs, including the idea that the “Creator has given life to the plants, to the animals, to the land, to the air, to the water.” Hence, their religious convictions are intertwined with Oak Flat. Such land has high significance for both prayer and sacred ceremonies. Apaches consider Oak Flat the “direct corridor” to their religion, similar to the significance of Mount Sinai for the Jewish community. Oak Flat is also recognized in the National Register of Historic Places.
Similar to historical Apache land, Oak Flat is coveted for its mining prospects. For this reason, the U.S. government has seized many of their properties. One such instance occurred in 1870, when the government removed the Apaches from their land to allow miners to utilize the property. From this point on, mining companies have lobbied Congress petitioning for control of Apache land. However, in 1955 President Eisenhower stated that due to its cultural and ecological values, Oak Flat is protected from mining. Therefore, Congress protected the land just as it would for a historic site such as an old mosque. Nevertheless, lobbyists eventually succeeded, as a rider was attached to the National Defense Authorization Act in 2014, giving Oak Flat to Resolution Copper (a foreign-owned mining company). Such mining will destroy Oak Flat in a way that is, “immediate, permanent, and large in scale,” rendering Apache religious practice impossible. Apache Stronghold, a nonprofit organization, filed a lawsuit on the grounds that Congress’ motion—and the consequential destruction of such religious site—violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Constitution, and an 1852 treaty which promised the safety and protection of Apache land. The RFRA, passed in 1993, necessitates the government “to show a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means possible” when imposing burdens on religious freedom. So, the court must decide if the government’s action violates the First Amendment, or if seizing Apache land is a compelling interest of the government which uses the least restrictive means.
This case clearly invokes questions involving the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Such clause protects citizens’ right to practice religion with the exception that it does not interfere with public morals or government interest. One plausible argument is that the government is denying Apaches’ religious liberty through destroying their sacred place of worship. Since Oak Flat is essential to Apache rituals, government infringement, and perhaps, destruction, of this site is an impediment to free exercise. On the other hand, the Free Exercise Clause applies strict scrutiny to laws “that substantially burden the exercise of religion if they lack neutrality and general applicability.” So, it is up to question whether the rider allowing the mining company to seize Apache land is neutral. Its facial intention is not to target free exercise of religion but acquisition of resources. Therefore, United States v. Navajo Nation is relevant to the decision of this case. In 2009, the Supreme Court of the United States denied the “substantial burden” claim to the Navajo tribe. The court stated that the government use of their land did not burden their exercise of religion. The harm imposed by the government did not meet the standard of burden, and hence the Navajo tribe lost. Though this case presents an applicable precedent, a great portion of this argument was due to the fact that the burden did not affect environmental factors that were significant to Navajo religious ceremonies. This is not the case for the Apache community, as the mining would destroy the religious land of the tribe.
As argued by Apache Stronghold, the government is infringing upon the religious liberties of the Apache tribe and thus violating the First Amendment. Native Americans are often a targeted minority group, and the U.S. government has a long history of transgressions against this community, particularly in relation to seizing land. Furthermore, the means being used by the government have been deemed as completely destructive to Apache religious practices. Hence, the actions by the government are in violation of the “least restrictive means” clause in the RFRA. According to Employment Division v. Smith, government actions burdening religion are protected only if it is a “neutral law of general applicability.” In this case, the government’s policy is directly targeted at the Apache community and its land. It may be facially neutral, but clearly applies to the Apache group in particular.
Having presented the facts of the case and relevant court precedent, I leave the audience with an imperative question. Did the National Defense Authorization Act violate the Free Exercise Clause in a manner that imposes restrictive means on the religious liberty of the Apache tribe? I encourage readers to watch the short clip below.
I think by allowing the mining the 1st Amendment rights of the Apache tribe are being violated. Because with the mining it destroys their religious practices, it disproportionally impacts their religion. Additionally, there is no alternative to that land for them, whereas there is other land in the US that does not have religious significance but still has natural resources.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a very clear case in which the Apache Stronghold is completely right in every way to see this as a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The land that is in contention is land that is used for religious practices and the purpose of taking the land is to make money by mining. This is not only a clear violation of the RFRA, but I think it is just an egregious violation of the Apache's right to their land. This case is likely being clouded by some American exceptionalism. What I mean by that is people often seem to overlook the fact that the United States is built on stealing land from native populations and this is a continuation of that.
ReplyDeleteThis was a very well-written and interesting blog post. I think that the Apache tribe's 1st amendment rights are being violated. As you mention toward the end of the post, it seems that the laws are not neutral and are directed towards the Apache tribe. Additionally, I wonder how the case would change if someone wanted to build a mine right next to an important Catholic Church. Would the government do this? Would there be much more outrage? There should not be different treatment for minorities, and they must be protected and respected.
ReplyDeleteI remember reading about this case last week and debating writing about it for my blog post. The whole point of the First Amendment is the protection of religious minorities, and by allowing the mining, the government is directly imposing on this minority's rights to practice their religion. Almost all of these cases, however, beg the question: how far can this argument go? If the Church of Cannabis one day insists on land for growing their weed, would the government allow this? I think the response is that indigenous religions are extremely important to the history of America and the traditions have been occurring for hundreds of years. On another note, I do not see this as religious neutrality whatsoever, and question this argument in the first place. How can victimizing scared land for a relevant minority religion seem neutral? There are simply other places to mine, and I guess if one day mining locations run out, debating whether or not to impose on sacred land would be the least of the government's problem because of the environmental implications.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting case and a very well-written post! I completely agree with you on this, especially the intersection of the arguments you explained. It's not only the burden on the Apache tribe's land, or their inability to engage in religious practices becuase the mining is taking up their land, the law was not neutral in effect and did impact the Apache tribe more than other groups, despite its facial neutrality. The National Defense Authorization Act did violate the Free Exercise Clause in a manner that imposes on the relgious liberty of the Apache tribe. Additionally, I don't necessarily understand the compelling government interest in this case. Especially in today's political climate, mining is known to be dangerous and bad for the environment, and moves are being made to renewable energy. It seems like destroying this sacred land of the Apache tribe for mining does not have enough of an interest to restrict their religious practices.
ReplyDelete