In 2025, the Apache Stronghold copper mine lawsuit reached a critical milestone as the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a challenge by Apache religious leaders and advocates to block the development of the Resolution Copper mine at Oak Flat, Arizona. This deeply divisive and closely-watched case spotlights the conflict between Indigenous religious and cultural rights and the economic push to mine one of the world’s largest copper deposits. Here’s a clear breakdown of how the case developed, the major legal arguments, where things stand now, and the profound implications for Native rights and the environment.
Apache Stronghold Copper Mine Lawsuit: Main Issues and Background
Why Did the Lawsuit Happen?
Oak Flat (Chi’chil Biłdagoteel) is a federally owned parcel of land within Tonto National Forest in Arizona, considered an irreplaceable sacred religious site for the San Carlos Apache and other Western Apache peoples. In 2014, a congressional act authorized a land swap: over 2,400 acres of Oak Flat would be transferred to Resolution Copper—a joint venture of mining giants Rio Tinto and BHP—in exchange for other land in Arizona. The proposed mine was expected to ultimately create a crater nearly two miles wide and 1,000 feet deep, effectively erasing the sacred site.
- Apache Stronghold, a coalition including tribal members and advocates, filed suit in 2021 to stop the land transfer and mine, arguing the destruction of Oak Flat would violate their religious freedoms guaranteed under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment.
- The group also referenced an 1852 treaty in which the U.S. government promised to safeguard Apache lands and protect tribal “prosperity and happiness.”
Resolution Copper’s and the Government’s Argument
- Mining proponents argued that the land exchange was authorized by Congress and that Oak Flat is federal property—not reservation or tribal land.
- The copper deposit at Oak Flat is among the richest in the world, and mining advocates claim it is vital to America’s energy, infrastructure, and defense needs.
- The U.S. Forest Service and mining companies insisted that, while the site’s destruction was regrettable, legal precedent did not support blocking the mine.
Legal Proceedings and Key Developments
From District Court to Supreme Court
- Apache Stronghold initially lost in federal district court, which found that the land exchange “did not impose a substantial burden on religious exercise” under RFRA or the Constitution.
- In March 2024, a sharply divided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court ruling, siding with the U.S. government and allowing the land transfer to proceed.
- Apache Stronghold appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but on May 27, 2025, the Court declined to hear the case. This decision let the lower court ruling stand and allowed the mine to advance.
- Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas strongly dissented, with Gorsuch calling the Court’s refusal a “grave mistake” with potential consequences for generations, arguing the case deserved the same concern afforded to protection of Christian or Jewish sacred spaces.
While the Supreme Court’s action was a major blow, a temporary district court order had paused the land transfer until after the completion of a final environmental impact statement (EIS). The Forest Service’s EIS is anticipated imminently, after which—absent further injunctions—the land will be transferred to Resolution Copper and mining may begin.
Broader Impacts and Ongoing Legal Battles
Are Further Lawsuits Possible?
- Multiple additional lawsuits remain active in federal court, including actions by the San Carlos Apache Tribe and environmental groups challenging the legality of the land swap under environmental and historic preservation laws.
- A fresh legal challenge can be filed against the EIS once published, potentially resulting in a new injunction or further delays.
Consequences for Native Rights and Environmental Policy
- The Supreme Court’s refusal to review the case sets a narrow precedent that may restrict future RFRA claims against land transfers, raising concerns among Indigenous advocates and religious liberty scholars.
- With billions of dollars at stake, the outcome will shape the balance between resource extraction and the preservation of irreplaceable Indigenous heritage in the U.S.
- The controversy has sparked calls for Congress to revisit the land exchange and for stronger protections of Native sacred sites on federal land.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Oak Flat, and why is it important?
Oak Flat is a unique high desert valley sacred to Apache and other Indigenous peoples, used for ceremonies, prayer, and traditional gatherings for generations. The planned mine would effectively obliterate the site.
What does the Supreme Court decision mean?
By declining to hear the case, the Supreme Court left the lower court ruling in place—effectively removing the final major legal roadblock to the transfer of Oak Flat to the mining company.
Can Apache Stronghold stop the mine now?
The main legal avenue under RFRA and treaty claims has closed as of 2025, but new lawsuits regarding environmental or procedural violations may still be possible. The status of the land transfer may depend on the outcome of these additional challenges.
When will mining begin?
Once the final environmental impact statement is issued and the 60-day waiting period expires, the land is set to transfer to Resolution Copper, possibly by late 2025 or early 2026—unless a new injunction intervenes.
Conclusion
The Apache Stronghold copper mine lawsuit highlights the deeply contested intersection of Indigenous rights, religious freedom, and resource extraction in America. The legal defeat for Apache Stronghold will have lasting implications for the future of sacred sites, environmental justice, and the responsibilities of both government and industry when faced with competing claims over public lands. The next phase will play out both in the courts and the halls of Congress, as advocates redouble efforts to protect places like Oak Flat from irreversible loss.
