Supreme Court Showdown: Native American Group Battles Mining Giants Rio Tinto and BHP Over Sacred Arizona Land
By Ernest Scheyder
(Multibagger) - In a dramatic twist in the ongoing saga of religious rights and the energy transition, a Native American group has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to stop global mining giants Rio Tinto (NYSE: RIO) and BHP from accessing Arizona land earmarked for one of the world's largest copper mines.
The Battle for Chi’chil Biłdagoteel: A Struggle Between Sacred Land and Copper Demand
Apache Stronghold, an advocacy group representing Arizona's San Carlos Apache tribe and conservationists, is challenging a March ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court had allowed the federal government to swap land with the mining companies for the Resolution Copper project, a decision that split the judges sharply.
The appeal was delivered in person to the Supreme Court, following a ceremonial prayer and dance at the court's steps in Washington, DC. This ceremony marked the end of a months-long journey from their Arizona reservation to the U.S. capital.
Legal and Constitutional Stakes
For the Supreme Court to hear the case, at least four justices must agree. Apache Stronghold and their legal team from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty argue that allowing the mine would violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion.
Should the court take up the case, oral arguments could begin as early as next month, with a decision potentially by June.
The Heart of the Dispute: Oak Flat Campground
The contested land, known as Chi’chil Biłdagoteel in Apache, is a federally owned site where Apache people worship their deities. Beneath this sacred ground lies a copper reserve estimated at over 40 billion pounds (18.1 million metric tons), crucial for electric vehicles and numerous electronic devices.
A mine on this site would create a massive crater, 2 miles (3 km) wide and 1,000 feet (304 m) deep, obliterating the sacred worship area.
Historical and Political Context
In 2014, Congress and then-President Barack Obama sanctioned a complex land swap deal favoring Rio Tinto. However, President Joe Biden put a hold on this land exchange upon taking office in 2021.
The U.S. Department of Justice, under Biden, maintains that the government has the authority to distribute its land as it sees fit, regardless of religious implications.
"This legal argument is astonishingly broad and harmful to Native Americans and people of all faiths," said Luke Goodrich, the Becket attorney leading the appeal.
Mining Giants’ Stance
Rio Tinto has dismissed the case as unworthy of Supreme Court review, aligning with the 9th Circuit's decision. "This case is about the government's right to pursue national interests with its own land, a longstanding proposition that the Supreme Court and other courts have consistently reaffirmed," stated a Rio Tinto spokesperson.
BHP, holding a 45% stake in the project compared to Rio Tinto's 55%, declined to comment. Both companies have already invested over $2 billion without producing any copper.
Timing and Coincidence
The appeal's timing coincidentally aligns with the four-year anniversary of Rio Tinto's dismissal of its former CEO over inadequate consultation with Indigenous groups in Australia. However, attorneys clarified that the appeal date is due to a fluke in the court's calendar and not intended to coincide with the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.
---
Breaking It Down: The Impact on You and Your Finances
What’s Happening?
A Native American group is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block mining companies from developing a massive copper mine on sacred land in Arizona. This battle pits religious rights against the demand for copper, a key material in electric vehicles and electronics.
Why Should You Care?
- Economic Impact: If the mine proceeds, it could significantly boost copper supply, potentially lowering prices for electronic devices and electric vehicles.
- Environmental and Cultural Concerns: The destruction of sacred land raises ethical questions and could set a precedent for future land use conflicts, affecting not just Native American rights but broader environmental and cultural protections.
Bottom Line: This case is a critical intersection of economic interests, religious freedom, and environmental ethics. Its outcome could shape U.S. land use policies and influence the energy transition's future pathway. Understanding this case helps you grasp the broader implications for both the market and societal values.