Scotus’ justice conflicts with a prohibition of gender-affirming care for minors
The Justice Department and the ACLU have argued in the Supreme Court that banning care to maintain the gender of minors is gender-based discrimination.
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on May 27 refused to engage in a dispute over mining sacred land to the San Carlos Apache tribe, supported by religious groups to test the scope of the 1993 federal law protecting religious freedom.
Dozens of churches and religious groups urged the courts to hear challenges from tribal members represented by prominent religious rights law firms.
A lawyer for the Beckett Fund for Religious Freedom said the court would not be too far to fend off the question of what qualifies as an inappropriate burden on religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The conservative justice of the two courts – Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas – said they would take the case.
“Before the government allowed the sacred sites of Apache, this court should have plagued itself at least to hear their case,” Gorsuch, who often defends Native American rights, wrote in his opposition.
Gorsac said there was no doubt that the court agreed to hear the case if he involved a historic cathedral rather than an ancient site of tribal worship.
Another conservative justice, Samuel Alito, said he was not involved in the decision. Alito gave no reason for his rejection.
The lawsuit, which the court refused to hear, features a portion of Arizona’s Tonto National Forest at the pinnacle of the world’s third largest copper ore deposit.
In 2014, Congress handed over 2,422 acres of the area to private mining company settlement copper in exchange for other land in Arizona.
Apache Strolldo, an advocacy group representing some members of the San Carlos Apache tribe, has been sued to block the transfer. The Apaches say that the site, known as Chí’chil Biłdagoteel, or Oak Flat, is a direct corridor to the Creator for religious rituals that cannot be performed elsewhere.
Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the government cannot “substantially burden” the exercise of a person’s religion without “persuasive government interests.”
The federal government said the Supreme Court previously ruled that the law would not apply when the government handles its own property.
However, Mark Lienzi, chairman of the Beckett Fund for Religious Freedom, said it was clear that religious expression among tribe members was being hampered.
“Of course, when you blow up their sacred places and they can’t worship there, that’s the burden of their religion,” Rienzi said. “It’s just English.”
The mining company said that interpretation of the law would allow “if you truly believe in any activity, such as camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, mining, etc., you can block the use of public land except your own land.
Solution Copper also said the project could supply nearly a quarter of the country’s copper to support the transition to clean energy and other national priorities.
Earlier this month, a federal judge in Arizona temporarily blocked the federal government from moving forward with land relocation until the Supreme Court acted on appeal.
