Despite land transfer, Apache Stronghold continues effort to protect sacred Arizona site
Apache Stronghold coalition continues legal challenge to protect Oak Flat, a sacred site in Arizona, after the Supreme Court declined to hear the case and the land was transferred to mining company Resolution Copper. Four active lawsuits remain, including three in the 9th Circuit and one in District Court, contesting ongoing construction and the land transfer. The case has broader implications for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and has drawn support from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other religious groups. Resolution Copper argues the project complies with settled law, while the coalition seeks to preserve the site’s spiritual and historic significance. The Trump administration announced plans to proceed with the copper mine, emphasizing economic benefits despite continued appeals.
3 months ago
Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear its case and the recent transfer of Oak Flat to mining company Resolution Copper, the Indigenous coalition Apache Stronghold is persisting with four active lawsuits aimed at halting construction of a copper mine on the sacred Arizona site 1
Oak Flat, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is regarded as a sacred area by local Native American peoples. In December 2014 Congress directed the U.S. Forest Service to swap the land to Resolution Copper after copper deposits were discovered, lifting a prior mining ban 1
Apache Stronghold appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the case raised critical questions under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In May 2025 the Court declined to review the case; Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented, calling the refusal a “grave mistake” 1
Lead attorney Luke Goodrich of Becket says three of the lawsuits are pending before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, while the original case remains in District Court. The coalition continues to challenge both the mine’s construction and the legality of the land transfer 1
Resolution Copper asserts that “settled law” backs the congressional land exchange and the project’s advancement, noting that courts at every level have previously ruled in its favor and that three presidential administrations have supported the mine 1
Goodrich warns that allowing the government to burden Native American religious practice without strict scrutiny could create a “two‑tier system of religious liberty,” potentially affecting other faith groups seeking access to federal lands 1
The coalition hopes the Department of Justice’s Religious Liberty Commission will highlight the “double standard” and recommend rescinding the land transfer, keeping the legal battle alive despite recent setbacks 1*
Evaluate Catholic teachings on protecting sacred sites amid modern development
Catholic teaching treats “sacred sites” as more than real estate: they are places where human worship, cultural memory, and the dignity of persons meet the gift of creation. Modern development can be licit, but only when it is governed by reverence, ecological and cultural justice, and participation of those most affected—especially where land is experienced as sacred and communities risk being displaced or harmed.
In Catholic moral vision, the defense of sacred places is tied to respect for persons and cultures—not only for “nature” in the abstract. Pope Francis explains that indigenous communities relate to land not as a commodity but as a gift from God and a sacred space that supports identity and values.
A key text summarizes the logic:
“For them, land is not a commodity but rather a gift from God… a sacred space with which they need to interact if they are to maintain their identity and values.”
When large projects are proposed without regard for the degradation of nature and culture, pressure is put on communities to abandon their homelands—an ethical failure, not merely a policy problem.
Sacred sites include religious places that enable prayer and reflection. The Dicastery for Evangelization states that those responsible for sanctuaries must vigilantly ensure these places remain:
“sacred spaces of authentic spirituality, where the heart finds comfort and reflection… through silence, prayer and dialogue.”
The Church’s concern is not only to preserve buildings, but to preserve the spiritual function of those places. The same document notes the need to prepare clergy and pastoral workers responsible for sanctuaries, indicating that safeguarding sacred sites is partly a pastoral and educational duty.
Similarly, Pope John Paul II treats church buildings and religious art as entrusted treasures that the Church “feels obliged to preserve for posterity,” linking preservation to reverence for God and catechesis for future generations.
Catholic teaching also applies to ancient remains and religious heritage through the discipline of archaeology. Pope Leo XIV describes archaeology as a “school of cultural sustainability and spiritual ecology,” teaching reverence for matter, memory, and history, and rejecting a mindset where evidence is discarded.
This matters for development because construction can destroy traces of faith and history. Archaeology’s patient gaze models the moral stance required: “They do not throw things away, they preserve them.”
A recurring Catholic principle is that ecological and cultural protection flows from who God made humans to be. Pope Francis urges that we have been made “stewards, not masters of the planet” and calls for ecological conversion and intergenerational solidarity.
This places sacred-site protection within a broader moral duty: development must not be driven by domination or waste.
Catholic teaching insists that protection is not only technical, but also ethical. An Acta Apostolicae Sedis text emphasizes:
Therefore, if development harms a sacred site, Catholics judge the act by its total impact: spiritual, cultural, environmental, and human.
Pope Francis repeatedly criticizes extractive policies that wound harmony between persons, communities, and creation. He names extractivism, deforestation, and mining as wounds that destroy populations and sever people from “Mother Earth.”
On sacred land, the critique becomes juridical and moral: defending land, water, and food is described as justice and a guarantee of sustainability for everyone; the threats include “increasing grabbing of farmland by multinational companies, large investors and states.”
So, Catholic evaluation is especially sensitive to whether development is:
Catholic environmental ethics requires respect for the dignity and freedom of those affected. John Paul II teaches that ecological programs must respect the full dignity and freedom of whoever may be affected and must consider people’s “values” and “unique social and cultural heritage.”
This directly bears on sacred sites: a development project that proceeds while ignoring local worship, cultural ties, or community rights fails the moral requirement of respect.
Pope Francis frames dialogue between indigenous wisdom and science as a way to address urgent issues without conflict and without violating human dignity. He calls for listening and reciprocal dialogue to overcome conflicts nonviolently and combat poverty and slavery.
He also stresses that indigenous peoples’ voice and concerns should be central to implementing sustainable futures.
In other words, sacred-site protection includes method: the Church urges that affected communities be recognized as dialogue partners, not obstacles.
The Dicastery’s guidance points to concrete pastoral and governance implications:
Thus, Catholic teaching supports development of infrastructure for access and care—but only under a discipline of spiritual preservation and sustainability.
Laudato Si’ and related teaching suggest that the key question is whether development treats land as a commodity or as a sacred gift embedded in culture. Where land is sacred and a community’s continuity is threatened, Catholic ethics requires special care and treating indigenous communities as principal dialogue partners.
Pope Francis further connects injustice with environmental harm, warning against ignoring indigenous communities and against extractive functionalism.
Pope Leo XIV’s account of archaeology implies that development should not proceed with a mentality of disposal or overconsumption. Instead, it should allow for careful preservation and interpretation of evidence, because even small traces have value and can carry “the meaning of faith” and “the silence of prayer.”
That is a Catholic moral stance toward “matter and memory”: preserve what witnesses to faith and history.
Catholic teaching evaluates modern development that threatens sacred sites through the lens of stewardship, integral ecology, and justice toward persons and cultures: development must not be extractive, must respect dignity and cultural heritage, must safeguard places of worship and prayer, and must preserve the material and historical memory that supports faith across generations.