Apache Native Americans are fighting to save Oak flat which is a sacred location for religious activities. For centuries, Native Americans have been visiting this site in the Tonto National Forest to pray and worship. Oak Flat consists of “old-growth oak groves, sacred springs, burial locations, and a singular concentration of archeological sites.” However, the U.S Forest Service has ignored the sacred religious site classification and plan on giving the land to Resolution Copper, a mining company, in exchange for other land. The actions Resolution Copper would do to mine the land would destroy the sacred site. Oak Flat has many resources, particularly around two billion tons of metal, that has made this land a commodity. To harvest the metal, the evacuations would likely result in the surface of Flat Oak “to distort and sink until it forms a “large surface crater.”
The ninth circuit had denied protection of Oak Flat stating that the land transfer does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as it does not substantially burden Apache religion. The Religious Freedoms Restoration Act states that the government should avoid applying a substantial burden and use the least restrictive means possible. The RFRA was implemented after Employment Division v. Smith which led to the controversial precedent that Free Exercise can be denied for “neutral laws of general applicability.” The RFRA was created to hopefully undermine this precedent and allow religious exemptions in federal laws.
Apache Stronghold has appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has not decided on whether they will take the case. The constitutional question at hand is whether the United States Forest Service giving sacred land to Resolution Copper creates a significant burden on the Free Exercise of Apache Native Americans. The Apache Stronghold leaders have stated “as the dwelling place of the Ga’an, Oak Flat is a direct corridor to the Creator and is ‘uniquely endowed with holiness and medicine.’ Neither ‘the powers resident there, nor religious activities that pray to and through these powers can be relocated.” This represents the importance of this specific location to their religion and that religious activities would be impossible with Oak Flat’s destruction, which is a substantial burden. In one of the briefs, the Apache lawyers sited “the court has already held that when government controls the resources required for religious practice, barring access to those resources is a substantial burden of free exercise” and that “the same must be true for federal lands.” 
This case is like Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protection Association. The court has “historically resisted recognizing Native American religious claims over public land.” In this case, the Supreme Court denied religious protections against a native American community worried that a logging road would destroy their religious site. The court reasoned that there was not a less restrictive means to please both parties. They argued that the Free Exercise Clause was not violated as there was “no coercion, discrimination, or penalty for their religious beliefs” and that the government “simply could not operate if it were required to satisfy every citizen’s religious needs and desires.” This sentiment sited reflects the decision of the 9th circuit as they argued that the transferring of Oak did not substantially burden the Apache’s religious exercise as they could still freely believe in their religion without the land. The plaintiff in Apache Stronghold v. United States sited this case and the RFRA reasoning that the RFRA would seemingly overturn Lyng and rule in favor of the Apache. The 9th court disagreed meaning the precedent of general applicability in Employment Division v. Smith should apply to Apache Stronghold v. United States as they believed it was a neutral and a generally applicable decision.
In my opinion, I believe that the Supreme Court should take this case and rule in favor of the Apache community. The actions of the U.S Service in transferring sacred land to Resolution Copper does significantly burdens their free exercise of religion. Many of their sacred traditions would no longer be able to be performed. For example, Girls approaching womanhood must collect plants from oak flat as “’the spirit of Chi’chil Bildagoteel.’ As she gathers, she speaks to the spirit of Oak Flat, expressing gratitude for its resources.” This important coming of age tradition cannot continue by the destruction of the religious site and this is one of many religious rituals that would be obliterated. This does create more than a substantial burden, but almost eliminates the religion. While they are still free to believe their religion, without the ability to practice, the entire meaning and traditional aspect of their religion vanishes. Traditions and rituals are important for the maintenance and passing down of religion as younger generations may have a hard time grasping the importance without the meaningful nature of Oak Flat. I also believe this case is different than Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protection Association as I could understand the court having a compelling interest in log roads as it directly helps manufacturing within the United States. However, Copper Resolution is an Australian mining company. Personally, I do not believe the government has the right to transfer religious land to a foreign company even if it was in exchange for other land. I just don’t believe that acquisition of other land is a compelling enough interest to so directly burden the religious exercise of their own citizens. They are directly favoring foreign and monetary purposes in expense of the long-exploited group's Free Exercise.
This case holds interesting stakes within the religious liberties era. The recent Supreme Court has been very open to accommodating religious exemptions. Christian denominations and prominent republican figures have sided with the Apache believing that religious liberties “rise and fall together.” This represents the sentiment of religious advocacy groups that all religions must have Free Exercise to protect all groups religious exercise. If this case were to rule in favor of the Apache community, the case would also be a crucial win for Native American communities that have long been exploited by the United States. This could bring forth a new age of justice and preservation for Native American communities who have struggled for years to have their religious liberties upheld.
https://becketfund.org/case/apache-stronghold-v-united-states/
https://newrepublic.com/article/194582/supreme-court-apache-stronghold-mining
https://narf.org/apache-oak-flat/
https://www.deseret.com/faith/2025/04/22/the-religious-freedom-case-stuck-in-supreme-court-limbo/
6 comments:
I agree with your position on this case. The destruction of Oak Flat would undeniably impose a substantial burden on Apache religious exercise, not merely inconveniencing their worship but pretty much eliminating its core religious practice completely since they cannot perform it elsewhere. True religious freedom should include protecting sacred sites essential to worship, especially for indigenous communities whose spiritual traditions are attached to specific geographical locations. The government's interest in mining does not outweigh this religious burden.
You raise an important point about how the destruction of Oak Flat isn't just a logistical obstacle - it's a spiritual and cultural erasure. I agree that this case pushes RFRA’s intent to its limits. If the government can transfer sacred land to a foreign corporation with no way for the Apache to continue their practices, that feels like the very definition of a “substantial burden.” And I find that the government should be held to some strict scrutiny about whether to not they are acting in the least restrictive way.
I also agree with your position on this case. The destruction of this land with mining operations would cause an impact on deeply held religious ceremonies and rituals of the Apache people. RFRA's intention was to strengthen the religious protections of minority communities, so I feel with this strong religious obligation to hold these rituals here, RFRA should stand and help to rule in favor of the Apache people.
I agree with you. Oak Flat is more than just land; it is a religious space essential to the Apache religion and cultural identity. Permitting an external mining company to damage it undermines Native religious freedom and breaches the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Religious liberty must be upheld for all faiths, including Indigenous traditions. The Supreme Court must consider this case to protect the Apache’s constitutional right to practice their religion freely.
I also agree with your position on this case. It is clear that Oak Flat is a religious place that is of central importance to Apache Native Americans. They have traditionally held religious ceremonies there and have for centuries viewed it as sacred. By destroying Oak Flat, I beleive that there would be a substantial burden on the Apache's religious freedom. In this case, the Apache are the minorities, and their religious rights are being challenged. The RFRA was created to protect religious groups from substantial burdens being imposed on them, and in this case, they should be doing the same.
Destroying Oak Flat not only infringes on the religious freedoms of the Apache people, but it also sets a troubling precedent for state interference with sacred religious sites. This issue extends beyond a violation of religious liberty- it also raises serious concerns about the separation of church and state, a core principle of the Constitution.
Post a Comment