In 2013, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act was authorized to convert thousands of acres of Federal Tonto National Forest Land to Resolution Copper. The project plan was to construct and operate a world-class mine to deliver sustainable benefits to the community. While promising significant communal and economic benefits, the destruction of the sacred Oak Flat area is of much concern to the Apache people. The Apache are a group of Native American tribes, indigenous to the southwestern states of the US and Northern Mexico. They are considered Native Americans with distinct culture, language, traditions, and rituals surviving in desert-like areas. Oak Flat is located in Pinal County, roughly 40 miles from Phoenix in the Tonto National Forest. The Land is Sacred to Native Americans from the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation and many other Arizona tribes. Oak Flat is a sacred site where the Apache Tribe go to worship, pray, and administer religious ceremonies. Apache Stronghold, an organization that represents the Apache Tribe, claimed that the transfer of the Oak Flat land to Resolution Copper violated the members’ rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), and a treaty established between the United States and the Apaches in 1852.
Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to override the Supreme Court decision in Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990) to provide further protection under the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause. In this case, the Oregon state agency denied unemployment benefits to two Native Americans who were released from drug counselling jobs because they tested positive for peyote, a hallucinogenic drug. The two men consumed the drug at a Native American religious ceremony as a religious sacrament during prayer. As part of their religion, peyote is seen as medicine for healing rather than a substance for drug use. Justice Antonin, writing for the majority, decided that “generally applicable religious-neutral criminal laws” do not violate the free exercise rights of individuals. The RFRA mandated that the court use strict scrutiny when examining laws that substantially affect religious freedom. After City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the court decided to overturn the provisions of the RFRA as it applied to the States. On a Federal level, though, the RFRA remains constitutional. Federally, the RFRA “Prohibits any agency, department, or official of the United States or any State from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except that the government may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: furthers a compelling governmental interest; and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
Similar to Apache Stronghold v United States, in 1988, the United States Forest Service wanted to pave a roadway that would occupy the Chimney Rock area of the Six Rivers National Park in California. They also considered timber harvesting in the area as well. It was well known that the land was historically significant to Native Americans who held religious rituals on the land, and still, the Forest Service decided to pave a roadway. In Lyng v Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association (1988), the court held that incidental effects of government land use, even if they destroy a religious group's ability to practice their religion, do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment unless the government coerces individuals of the group to go against their beliefs. The Apache Stronghold made three claims for their case. The first failed under the Supreme Court's ruling in the Lyng case, as the case details are very similar. The court recognized that the government's actions with public land would interfere with religious privacy and the ability to seek satisfaction as it relates to their religious beliefs, but the government did not coerce anyone into acting contrary to their beliefs. Also similar to Lyng, the transfer of Oak Flat to mining grounds did not discriminate against the Apache Tribe or Stronghold members, nor did it deny them any rights or privileges received by other citizens. The second, regarding the RFRA, was denied as well because the interference with land is not considered a substantial burden to the Tribe. And lastly, claiming the 1852 treaty failed as well. Apache Stronghold claimed that the treaty created an enforceable trust obligation that the interference of land would violate, but the government’s obligation to transfer Oak Flat repealed any opposing treaty obligations.
This case should be addressed with Lyng as precedent; therefore, the government has the right to convert the Oak Flat land to Resolution Copper. Lyng established that although government action may destroy the group's ability to exercise their belief on sacred soil, the Free Exercise Clause under the First Amendment is not violated unless coercion is involved. Unfortunately, the Apache people will have to relocate and find another place of worship after years of enjoying this sacred land, but they are not protected under the Free Exercise Clause, the Treaty of 1852, nor the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. This case is much different from what we have seen so far this semester, but looking into Free Exercise rights as it relates to historical sacred land and government enforcement sparked my interest, so I decided to do some research. I am excited to see if the class has any thoughtful responses or comments. Final Question: Does the government's authorization to convert acres of sacred land into a copper mine violate the Free Exercise Clause?
https://narf.org/cases/apache-oak-flat/
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/religious-freedom-restoration-act-of-1993/
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/485/439/
I agree with the reasoning you provided in how this case would rule similarly to the Lyng case because of the very close similarities and how that played out. In the end, the burden of having to relocate the Apache tribe isn't a strong enough case due to precedented cases for the court to rule in favor of the Apache Tribe. Even though they are removing the tribe from their religious grounds, they are not concerning this as an effect of their religious practices.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your opinion in this case. One of the main reasons that the government is justified in converting the land into a mine is because it is federally owned land. Because the government owns the land, they can do whatever they would like with it. The government is also not preventing the Apache from practicing their religion, meaning it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause.
ReplyDeleteI ultimately agree with your opinion on the case. This proposal does not coerce or contain significant discrimination overall. In addition to those two reasons (as mentioned in the other comments) the land is federally owned and the federal government has good reason to convert it into a mine. I see no significant burden placed on the Apache as they are not being restricted in practicing their religion so it would ultimately not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your conclusion that this case will most likely not side with the Apache people. While I empathize with the limited land they have been given in the US to practice their religious beliefs, I think based on the precedents they will ultimately side with Resolution Copper. With the social and economic benefits it is supposed to provide as well, I think Resolution Copper could make the argument that the government has a compelling interest to allow they to convert the land for the other groups of people living in that area besides the Apache.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your conclusion that the courts may not rule in favor of the Apache people. However, I believe this case is not religiously neutral because I doubt the courts would make the same decision if the land in question were home to a Christian church or an Islamic mosque. If the courts would make the same decision under those circumstances, then I would agree that this is not a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. However, allowing this development places a significant burden on the Apache people's religious practice, as this is a sacred area under their religious beliefs and should be maintained as such.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to your conclusion and that of our other classmates, I agree that the Court is unlikely to rule in favor of the Apache people based on precedent. These cases complicate the question of what a burden placed on religion is. Are these burdens applicable to specific land, or only to limiting individual behaviors? Destroying Oak Flat may not coerce the Apache people to violate their beliefs, but it does remove an important place for those beliefs to be practiced, which for the Apache people is a substantial burden different from those courts usually recognize. An indirect burden is still a burden, similar to how indirect aid is often still considered as aid legally, and so I also believe the argument of the Apache people is warranted.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Jayden's conclusion that, under current precedent, the government’s transfer of Oak Flat does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. As he explains, Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association established that even if government land use severely interferes with a group’s religious practices, it does not amount to a constitutional violation unless there is coercion. He also states correctly that the RFRA claim fails because the interference with the land was not considered a substantial burden under federal law.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with the court's ruling because, regardless if it's owned land, the Apache people still should have access to the land for the sake of religious neutrality. I do not believe that if it were a sacred Christian ground that the same outcome would be occured.
ReplyDeleteInteresting point, Janai.
Delete