The case of Apache Stronghold v. United States highlights the complex balance between protecting minority religious rights and accommodating competing interests, mainly economic pursuits. The dispute revolves around the preservation of sacred land crucial to the spiritual practices of the Apache people, which is in conflict with the economic interests of a mining company: Resolution Copper.
Oak Flat, located within the Tonto National Forest of Arizona, holds immense significance for the Apache community. It has served as a sacred site integral to their religious rituals and cultural heritage for centuries. The land has been utilized for ceremonies such as the "coming-of-age Sunrise Ceremony for Apache women; sweat lodge ceremonies; gathering of sacred medicine plants, animals, and minerals; and the use of sacred waters." These practices are not merely traditions but represent the essence of Apache spirituality and identity.
However, Oak Flat faces an urgent threat due to its valuable and highly desired copper deposits, which have attracted the interest of mining companies such as Resolution Copper. Despite centuries of federal site protection, lobbying efforts have consistently attempted to exploit its resources. They had been unsuccessful until 2014, when a controversial "last-minute rider" was attached to a defense bill, effectively transferring Oak Flat to Resolution Copper and inviting the company to destroy these sacred lands.
This legal battle is led by Apache stronghold, a coalition of Native American individuals who sought to challenge this transfer in court, arguing that it is a violation of their religious freedom of free exercise. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 is central to their case, "requiring the government to show a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means possible when its actions would pose a substantial burden on religious exercise." However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there was no substantial burden on the Apache's religious exercise, allowing the transfer to continue.
This ruling raises fundamental questions about the interpretation and application of the RFRA based on the Apache Stronghold's free exercise rights. While the direct infringement on religious practices may not be apparent, the threat to Oak Flat poses a dangerous and irreversible threat to the destruction of Apache's religious life. The destruction of Oak Flat would obliterate the spiritual connection between the Apache people and their traditions, depriving them of religious expression that defines their identities as individuals and as one people. Therefore, Considering the facts of this case, does the Federal Government violate Apache Stronghold's free exercise of religion by allowing the obliteration of their sacred land in which they hold religious rituals?
The comparison to Braunfield v. Brown (1961) provides valuable insights and precedent into the constitutional principle of incidental and substantial burdens on religious exercise. In Braunfield, Orthodox Jews faced economic hardships due to the requirement to abide by Sunday closing laws as well as participating in their Saturday sabbath under their religion. Despite the incidental nature of the burden, the Orthodox Jews continued to face incredibly harmful effects on their economic prosperity and existence as followers of the Orthodox Jewish religion. The court ruled that because this was an indirect burden, it was not an unconstitutional violation of the Orthodox Jews' free exercise rights. This violated the Constitution's Free Exercise Clause because although a burden may not be substantial, incidental burdens can certainly harm a religious group. Similarly, in Apache Stronghold v. United States, the potential obliteration of Oak Flat imposes an incidental burden on Apache religious practices, leading me to believe that there should be constitutional protection of these religious rights despite the lack of substantiality in effect. Therefore, there was a violation of Apache Stronghold's free exercise rights due to the government's ignorance and failure to recognize that although not substantial, there is an incidental burden in place that must be treated accordingly.
The implications of this case extend beyond the fate of Oak Flat. It emphasizes the broader issue of safeguarding minority religious rights against opposing interests, economic or other. This ruling can shape how religious minority cases are ruled in the United States and establish precedents for future conflicts between indigenous communities and companies seeking to obtain resources. Ultimately, Apache Stronghold v. United States highlights the ongoing struggle to accommodate competing interests while upholding constitutional principles and rights. The protection of minority religious rights is something that all justices should strive for, as it is intertwined with the principles of equality and justice. It is imperative that the court recognizes the importance of preserving Oak Flat as a sacred site and upholds the religious rights of the Apache people.
Sources:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960/67
https://www.becketlaw.org/case/apache-stronghold-v-united-states/
6 comments:
Hi Tess,
Great work on this post! I love how you chose a case which focused extensively on the relationship between the desires of small religious groups and large corporations. While Flat Oak is directly impacted by the outcome of this case, I agree with your insight that the outcome will set forth a standard about how smaller religious groups are viewed under the law. This case also incorporates elements of Employment Division v. Smith. While the majority is often protected with ease, it is essential that the courts maintain a high level of awareness toward the protections of smaller religious groups.
Hi Tess,
This is a great post and I agree with your reasoning. I think that this case is really important to look at when examining the rights of minority religions. I agree that the Free Exercise rights of the Apache people were violated. I also agree with your analysis that the ruling on this case will impact the rights of religious minorities in the future. The government was ignorant when ruling on the burden to the Apache people in this case, which will hopefully not occur in the future.
Tess, this was a great post! I agree with you that Apache Stronghold’s free exercise rights were violated when Resolution Copper was granted the ability to destroy the sacred lands of Oak Flat. I think that the Apache Strongold’s use of this land for centuries speaks to not only how critical and sacred it is to their religious practices, but also how sincere their religious beliefs are. I do not agree with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that transferring this land to Resolution Copper does not place a substantial burden on the religious exercise of Apache Stronghold. Additionally, it was interesting that you brought up the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and its requirement that a least restrictive means is implemented when actions pose a substantial burden on religious exercise. Since I agree with you that a substantial burden was placed on the religious free exercise of the Apache Stronghold, I believe that at the very least, the government could have found another way to accommodate the needs of the tribe without completely removing them from their sacred lands.
Tess,
Your analysis of the Apache Stronghold v. United States case emphasizes the complex dynamics between minority religious rights and corporate interests. It is a great topic of discussion to bring to light! The implications of this case set a precedent for how smaller religious groups are regarded under the law and thus, it is most certainly important to consider. The religious freedom clauses were created to protect the minority!
The violation of the Apache Stronghold's free exercise rights is most noticeable, as you argue. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' dismissal of the substantial burden placed on the Apache's religious practices reflects a systemic ignorance. Your mention of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) does a very good job of emphasizing the importance of employing the least restrictive means when religious exercise is burdened. In this case, alternative solutions could have been explored to accommodate the Apache Stronghold's needs without sacrilegiously destroying their sacred lands. Great post!
Hi Tess, great post! I agree with your reasoning and judgment that the US's agreement to transfer the land to Resolution Copper was a violation of the Apache people's free exercise because it placed a significant burden on their ability to freely exercise their religion. I would add the caveat that transferring the land itself does not place a burden on their free exercise, but because the US knew the company intended to destroy the land, and because they did not ensure the land's protection in the agreement, would prohibit them from transferring it. Is that why you used Braunfeld as a precedent, rather than another case?
I agree with this post for sure, and I think it really tackles an issue we have not talked much about in this class. I believe that the Apache people deserve their land, and that the government should not really own the land in the first place. However, since in my understanding they do? then it leads to an interesting question about neutrality. The founders intedned the first amendment to leave religious freedom as neutral, and we have sometimes talked about how this means protecting religious interests the same as secular ones, but what happens if we are overpowering secular interests for religious ones, such as this case? I know it is not this exact case, but say the government began to sell this land for mining, would this not be for the good interest of Americans as they are theoretically profiting from it, while if it stays Apache spiritual land (while owned by the government or whatnot) is that not favoring religion?
Post a Comment