General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSupreme Court clears way for massive copper mine on Apache sacred land
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-05-27/supreme-court-decision-on-proposed-copper-mine-on-apache-sacred-landsThe decision, which leaves intact a lower courts ruling against the tribe members, marked a major loss for Apache Stronghold, a group that has long argued that the mines construction would violate their religious rights by permanently wiping out a unique sacred site used for Apache religious ceremonies.
It allows the U.S. Forest Service to move forward with plans to issue a final environmental impact report and hear a last round of public comment before issuing a decision on transferring the land to Resolution Copper, a joint venture by the multinational mining companies Rio Tinto and BHP Group.
(snip)
However, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote a dissent joined by his fellow conservative, Justice Clarence Thomas saying the majoritys decision not to take the case was a grievous mistake and one with consequences that threaten to reverberate for generations.

Clouds Passing
(4,938 posts)Deuxcents
(22,357 posts)For all of us and a disrespectful regard to our First Nations People and their spiritual heritage.
Copper mining will forever change our beautiful landscape
aaaaaa5a
(4,673 posts)Alito abstained.
Shockingly, Thomas and Gorsuch dissented!
It takes 4 votes to take the case. Did all three of our justices vote to let the lower court ruling stand?
onenote
(45,262 posts)Roberts
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Kagan
Sotomayor
Jackson
If any two of them had voted to take the case, cert would have been granted.
Polybius
(20,012 posts)He has a strong history in siding with Native American issues before the court. But very surprised with Thomas, and how the three liberals chose not to take the case.
tritsofme
(19,204 posts)AZProgressive
(29,520 posts)I look at as the Supreme Court of a colonized country deciding what can happen to land that originally belonged to indigenous populations so I look at it from there. I was even afraid to point that out but I'm not asking for radical changes just that the treaties already agreed upon be respected.
I also look at it as Trump not respecting treaties so him doing it in the first place is the problem. Trump is a lot like a 1700s or 1800s President and I don't mean that in a good way.
anciano
(1,812 posts)EX500rider
(11,849 posts)....and letting religion dictate what happens on Federal land sounds like a bad idea to me, regardless of which religion.
Who voted how is a big tell.
madville
(7,711 posts)And lots of it. Governments cant mandate adoption of greener technologies and then let the production means to accomplish those goals be blocked and denied at every turn.
Were going to need lots of lithium and cobalt to for batteries. Big lithium operations are gearing up in North Carolina and out west that will strip thousands upon thousands of acres and its necessary if we want an electric future.
Basically its NIMBY behavior, it makes sense that the couple of dissenters were the far right judges because of the religious angle argued.
Jit423
(1,375 posts)DFW
(58,090 posts)The fact that it was sacred ground to a tribe of Americans whose religion was not some imported European cult was all that was necessary to dismiss the claim.