Welcome back to SCOTUS Oral arguments and opinions.

Today we're diving into a case that didn't make it to the supreme court for the October 2025 term, but that two justices argued forcefully should have.

It's a case called Apache Stronghold versus the United States and it's about religious freedom on federal land.

Before getting started, please note that this summary is read by an automated voice.

Also, I truly apologize for any mispronunciations.

Let me paint you a picture.

Imagine there's a place that's been sacred to your family for over a thousand years.

A place where your ancestors are buried, where your daughters come of age in ceremonies that can happen nowhere else on earth.

Now imagine the government decides to give that land to a mining company that will turn it into a crater nearly two miles wide and over a thousand feet deep.

That's exactly what's happening to the Western Apache people and a place they call Chi Chil Budagotil, which is also called Oak Flat.

Oak Flat isn't just any piece of land in Arizona's Tonto National Forest.

For the Apaches, it's literally a direct corridor to the Creator.

They believe it's the dwelling place of spiritual beings called the Gaan.

Think of them as holy spirits or guardian angels who serve as messengers between the Apache people and their Creator.

The ceremonies that happen there are irreplaceable.

Take the sunrise ceremony, which marks an Apache girl's transition to womanhood.

During this multi day ritual, the girl gathers plants that contain what the Apache call the spirit of Chichil Budagotil.

She's painted with white clay taken from the ground at Oak Flat itself, clay that represents the Apache creation story.

When her godmother wipes that clay from her eyes on the final day, she's literally reborn as a woman forever imprinted with the spirit of Oak Flat.

Crucially, these ceremonies can't happen anywhere else.

It's not like moving a church service to a different building.

The Apache say that without Oak Flat, without that connection to their sacred site, Apache women can't call themselves Apache.

As one woman put it, without the spirit of Chichil Bildugotil, there's nothing.

There's nothing at all.

Now here's the conflict.

In 1995, mining companies discovered one of the world's largest copper deposits thousands of feet beneath Oak Flat.

Two multinational giants, Rio Tinto and bhp, formed a joint venture called Resolution Copper and began lobbying Congress for permission to mine there.

For nearly a decade they tried the front door approach, introducing at least 12 separate bills in Congress to force the government to hand over Oak Flat.

Every single one failed.

The Apache people testified at hearings explaining the sacred nature of the site.

Congress listened and said no, again and again.

But then Resolution Copper and their congressional allies got creative.

They waited for the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act, A massive must pass defense spending bill that was 698 pages long and authorized hundreds of billions of dollars.

At the last minute, Resolution Copper convinced legislators to attach a small provision buried deep in that bill to that required the government to transfer Oak Flat to Resolution Copper in exchange for other scattered parcels of land.

So in 2021, when the government was about to finalize this land transfer, Apache Stronghold, a nonprofit founded by former Apache Tribal Chairman Dr.

Wenzler Nosey, filed a lawsuit.

They argued this violated the Religious Freedom Restoration act, or RFRA, and the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom.

Now, let me explain RFRA in simple terms.

Congress passed this law in 1993 after the supreme court made it harder for people to win religious freedom cases.

RFRA says the federal government can't substantially burden someone's religious practice by unless it has a compelling reason and uses the least restrictive means possible.

You'd think the Apache lawsuit would be a slam dunk case, right?

The government is literally going to destroy a sacred site and end religious ceremonies forever.

If that's not a substantial burden on religious exercise, what is?

But here's where it gets complicated.

The case first went to a federal district court, which denied the Apache's request for an emergency injunction to stop the land transfer.

Then a three judge panel at the ninth circuit Court of appeals affirmed that decision, with one judge writing a blistering dissent, Calling the majority's reasoning illogical and absurd.

The full 9th Circuit then decided to rehear the case with all 11 of their judges.

What's called an en banc review, which usually happens only when a case involves exceptionally important legal issues.

In a fractured ruling with seven different opinions spanning 246 pages, the 9th Circuit en banc court basically said, yes, preventing religious exercise is normally a substantial burden under rfra, but not when the government is managing its own land.

The 9th Circuit relied heavily on a 1988 Supreme Court case called Ling and vs Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association.

In that case, the government wanted to build a road near, not through, but near some sacred tribal sites.

The supreme Court said that was okay because the government wasn't coercing anyone to violate their religious beliefs.

But here's the problem.

Ling was about building a road that would leave the sacred sites standing Just disrupted.

The Apache case is about completely obliterating the sacred site forever.

It's the difference between building a highway next to a cathedral and dynamiting the cathedral itself.

The ninth Circuit essentially created a special rule.

When the government manages its own property, religious freedom protections don't apply the same way.

It's a carve out that Justice Gorsuch would later call legally dubious and and morally bankrupt.

When Apache Stronghold petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their case, both sides made compelling arguments.

The Apache argued that the Ninth Circuit had gotten it completely wrong, that RFRA's plaintext protects religious exercise on federal land just like everywhere else, and that completely destroying a sacred site is the ultimate substantial burden on religion.

They pointed out that six other federal appeals courts had ruled that preventing religious exercise always counts as a substantial burden, creating a clear conflict in how courts interpret RFRA across the country.

The government, on the other hand, doubled down on the Ninth Circuit's reasoning.

They argued that the 1988 Lyng decision established a bright line rule.

The federal government's management of its own property and simply doesn't create the kind of burden on religion that triggers RFRA protection.

They also made a practical argument that if the Apache won, it would create religious servitudes over vast swaths of federal land, making it impossible for the government to manage everything from military bases to national parks.

But when the decision came down, seven justices said no.

They denied certiorari without explanation, which is what the court does to about 99% of the cases that come before it.

But Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, wrote a scathing dissent from that denial.

Gorsuch argued this case met every standard the court uses for taking cases.

It involved an important legal question, it conflicted with decisions from other courts, and it had massive real world consequences.

What's fascinating here is how Gorsuch framed the moral stakes.

He compared this case to TVA versus Hill, where the Supreme Court stopped a nearly completed federal dam project costing over $100 million to protect an endangered fish from called the snail darter.

Gorsuch asked pointedly, if Congress went to such lengths to accommodate the snail darter, why should we suppose it offered less protection to people practicing an ancient faith?

Here's why this case matters.

Beyond the Apache people.

Heartbreaking as their situation is, the Ninth Circuit covers 74% of all federal land in America and nearly a third of the country's Native American population.

Their ruling creates a roadmap for the government to destroy any religious practice on federal land without having to justify it.

Under rfra, and it's already happening.

Right after the Ninth Circuit decision, the National Park Service used it to deny the Knights of Columbus permission to hold their annual Memorial Day Mass at a Virginia National Cemetery, a tradition they'd maintained for 60 years.

Justice Gorsuch warned that nothing would prevent the government from shutting down worship at historic churches in national parks, including Ebenezer Baptist Church, where Martin Luther King Jr.

Preached.

As I wrap up today's episode, I keep coming back to Justice Gorsuch's closing words.

He said if the government wanted to demolish a historic cathedral, the court would find that case worth their time.

Faced with the government's plan to destroy an ancient site of tribal worship, he wrote, we owe the Apaches no less.

He reminded us that the Apaches may live far from Washington, D.C.

and their history and religious practices may be unfamiliar to many, but that should make no difference.

As he put it, quoting his own words from another case, popular religious views are easy enough to defend.

It is in protecting unpopular religious beliefs that we prove this country's commitment to religious freedom.

The Apache people are still fighting this battle.

The government plans to transfer Oak Flat to Resolution Copper imminently.

Once that happens, the destruction will be permanent, and a thousand years of Apache religious tradition will be buried under a corporate mining operation.

Thanks for listening to SCOTUS oral arguments and opinions.

Hope you enjoyed.