Apache Stronghold v. United States of America
2:21-cv-00050
| D. Ariz. | May 9, 2025Background
- Apache Stronghold seeks to prevent a federally mandated land exchange transferring Oak Flat—sacred to the Western Apache—to Resolution Copper Mining under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2014.
- Oak Flat is a ceremonial ground within the Tonto National Forest; the transfer would exchange 2,422 acres of federal land for 5,344 acres owned by Resolution Copper.
- Apache Stronghold alleges the transfer violates the First and Fifth Amendments, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and the government’s trust obligations.
- The district court and Ninth Circuit (both panel and en banc) previously denied injunctions, concluding no likelihood of success on the merits under binding precedent.
- After the Forest Service issued a new Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), which could trigger the transfer imminently, Apache Stronghold requested an injunction pending its Supreme Court appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should transfer of Oak Flat be enjoined pending appeal? | Transfer would irreparably harm Apache religious exercise; serious questions remain for Supreme Court review. | Land transfer is mandated by Congress; no likelihood of irreparable harm or success as all courts have ruled for Defendants. | Injunction granted—balance of equities tips sharply for Plaintiff, with serious legal questions supporting an injunction through Supreme Court review. |
| Is loss of access to Oak Flat an irreparable harm? | Loss of legal rights, ability to worship, and possible site degradation are irreparable if transfer proceeds. | Mining and construction will not cause immediate irreparable harm; public can still access campground for years; harm is speculative. | Court finds likelihood of irreparable harm, as loss of rights and beginning of construction threaten permanent site destruction. |
| Has Apache Stronghold shown serious questions on the merits? | The case splits courts, raises unclarified questions under RFRA and Supreme Court precedent; cert is likely to be granted. | Ninth Circuit decisions are binding; no substantial question on the merits. | Court finds significant, unresolved legal questions warrant status quo preservation. |
| Does public interest and balance of equities favor injunction? | Protecting religious liberty substantially outweighs temporary delay in mining; error costs higher if injunction is denied. | Public interest in mining, jobs, and congressional mandate; delay harms project and public. | Balance of equities and public interest merge and favor Plaintiff; harms of denial outweigh harms of delay. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n, 485 U.S. 439 (1988) (government action on federal land affecting religious practice does not violate Free Exercise Clause)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (sets four-factor test for injunctive relief—likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest)
- Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) (classic Free Exercise Clause case—government burden on religion triggers strict scrutiny)
- Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (religious objection to school attendance recognized under Free Exercise Clause)
- Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (neutral laws of general applicability do not violate Free Exercise Clause)