The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a high-profile case involving a sacred Native American site in Arizona, prompting sharp criticism from within the Court itself.

By refusing to hear the case Apache Stronghold v. United States, the Court allowed a lower ruling to stand, clearing the way for a copper mine project at Oak Flat, a site Western Apaches regard as spiritually sacred, the Christian Post reported.

The case stemmed from long-standing opposition by Apache Stronghold, an advocacy group of Western Apaches and allies, who have fought since 2021 to preserve Oak Flat, also known as Chí’chil Biłdagoteel. The site is considered a centerpiece of Apache religious life, featuring ceremonies that tribe members say cannot occur elsewhere.

This week’s denial of certiorari leaves the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in place. That court had previously ruled that construction of the mine did not create a substantial burden on the tribe’s religious freedom under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, commonly known as RFRA.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined in part by Justice Clarence Thomas, issued a pointed dissent against the majority’s decision not to review the case. Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the Court’s deliberation.

Gorsuch dissents, warns of long-term consequences

In his dissent, Gorsuch argued that the government’s plan would cause irreparable harm to a vital religious site. He described Oak Flat as a place where tribal members connect directly to their Creator and perform sacred ceremonies passed down through generations.

“The government and a mining conglomerate want to turn Oak Flat into a massive hole in the ground,” Gorsuch wrote. “Just imagine if the government sought to demolish a historic cathedral on so questionable a chain of legal reasoning.”

He criticized the Court’s choice to bypass a full hearing, calling it “a grievous mistake” with implications that could endure for generations. According to Gorsuch, the Court should have held the government accountable under RFRA’s strict scrutiny requirements.

Legal tensions over religious liberty protections

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act requires the federal government to demonstrate that any substantial interference with religious exercise serves a compelling interest and is executed using the least restrictive means available. Arguments in support of Apache Stronghold emphasized that RFRA should apply even when the government is managing its land.

Conservative advocacy groups, including the Faith & Freedom Coalition and Advancing American Freedom, filed an amicus brief in October arguing that failing to apply RFRA in this case erodes protections for all faith-based communities. The brief emphasized that government actions should not override religious practices without meeting legal thresholds.

The brief also challenged the notion that land ownership alone gives the government unrestricted power, stating, “Where instinct might be to say ‘government can do what it wants with its land,’ RFRA says ‘not if ...’.”

Faith groups across the spectrum join the fight

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents Apache Stronghold, criticized the denial. Luke Goodrich, Becket’s senior counsel and vice president, said the decision marked a serious setback for protecting religious sites.

“It is hard to imagine a more brazen attack on faith than blasting the birthplace of Apache religion into a gaping crater,” Goodrich said. “The Court's refusal to halt the destruction is a tragic departure from its strong record of defending religious freedom.”

Multiple faith-based coalitions—Catholic, Protestant, and interdenominational—filed briefs backing Apache Stronghold. These included the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a group of military chaplains, and the Religious Freedom Institute, among others.

Apache Stronghold vows to press forward

Wendsler Nosie, a leader with Apache Stronghold, described the decision as a serious setback but reaffirmed his group’s resolve. “We will never stop fighting — nothing will deter us from protecting Oak Flat from destruction,” he said.

Calling the ruling a “heavy blow,” Nosie urged Congress to intervene. He asked lawmakers to “take decisive action to stop this injustice while we press forward in the courts.”

This case is the latest in a series of legal fights over Native American religious rights, which have drawn increasing national attention. Advocates warn that the refusal to review this case could weaken protections for other religious minorities in the future.

As mining development nears and legal options narrow, the debate over Oak Flat is likely to persist—not just in courtrooms, but in Congress and public opinion. Meanwhile, opponents of the mine are preparing their next legal and political responses.