Apaches Seek Review of Their RFRA Claim by 29-Judge Panel

As previously reported, last month the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc, by a vote of 6-5, refused to enjoin the government from transferring to a copper mining company federally-owned forest land that is of significant spiritual value to members of the Western Apache tribes. The land sits on the third largest deposit of copper ore in the world. The case generated six separate opinions spanning 241 pages which created separate majority alignments on different aspects of the interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Yesterday, plaintiffs filed a petition (full text) seeking review by a panel of all 29 judges on the 9th Circuit. The petition states in part:

If any case warrants full-court review, it is this one—where one en banc panel has overruled another, this Court’s judges are split 6-6, and a fractured decision has contradicted Supreme Court precedent on a question of existential importance to Native Americans. That question is whether the government “substantially burdens” religious exercise when it physically destroys a Native American sacred site, ending religious exercise forever. And the answer is plain: yes.

Becket Fund for Religious Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing.

Supreme Court Limits Scope of Injunction Against Idaho's Gender-Affirming Treatment Ban

In Labrador v. Poe, (Sup. Ct., April 15, 2024), the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case generating three separate opinions, but no opinion for the court, discussed three important issues-- the increasing number of cases on the Court's Emergency Docket (sometimes called its "Shadow Docket"); the increasing number of statewide or nationwide injunctions (sometimes called "Universal Injunctions") issued by federal district courts; and the constitutionality of bans on gender-affirming health care for minors. Last December, an Idaho federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the Idaho Attorney General and a county prosecutor from enforcing the state's recently enacted Vulnerable Child Protections Act against anyone. It concluded that the ban likely violated the equal protection clause and plaintiffs' parental rights to make medical decisions for their children. (See prior posting.) One reason given by the district court for issuing a statewide injunction was that plaintiffs, to maintain their privacy, were proceeding using pseudonyms, and it would be difficult to fashion an order applying only to plaintiffs without compromising their anonymity. The 9th Circuit issued a brief order affirming the district court.

In the petition filed with the Supreme Court, the state did not contest the granting of an injunction limited to the plaintiffs' obtaining gender-affirming drug treatments for their children. It only challenged the breadth of the district court's preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court, without issuing an opinion for the majority, stayed the district court's order "except as to the provision to the plaintiffs of the treatments they sought."   Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, issued a concurring opinion, saying in part:

The district court issued this sweeping relief even though, by its own admission, the plaintiffs had failed to “engage” with other provisions of Idaho’s law that don’t presently affect them—including the law’s provisions prohibiting the surgical removal of children’s genitals.... In choosing such an extraordinary remedy, the district court clearly strayed from equity’s traditional bounds.

Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Barrett, filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

Traditionally, one important factor when this Court decides an emergency application involving a new law is likelihood of success on the merits.  The likelihood of success on the merits factor can pose difficulty, however, because it can require the Court to assess the merits of important cases earlier and more quickly than is ordinarily preferable, and to do so without the benefit of full merits briefing and oral argument.  But when resolving emergency applications involving significant new laws, this Court often cannot avoid that difficulty. It is not ideal, but it is reality. Given that reality, the Court must then determine the best processes for analyzing likelihood of success on the merits in emergency cases.

Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Sotomayor, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

This case presents numerous reasons for exercising restraint.  As explained in Part I below, the State of Idaho’s emergency application asks us to override the decisions of two lower courts based on an issue not clearly implicated and under circumstances where the State does not contest that its law should remain enjoined as likely unconstitutional, at least as applied to the plaintiffs.  As described in Part II, even if today’s application actually involved a “universal injunction,” the emergency docket would not be the place to address the open and challenging questions that that issue raises.

Justice Kagan dissented, without opinion. Chief Justice Roberts did not indicate how he voted.

SCOTUSblog reports at greater length on the opinions.

Satanic Temple Can Move Ahead with Establishment Clause Challenge to Its Treatment by City Council

In The Satanic Temple v. The City of Chicago, (ND IL, March 31, 2024), an Illinois federal district court held that The Satanic Temple ("TST") had alleged enough to move ahead on its claim that the city had violated the Establishment Clause by constantly delaying for over three years a request by a TST clergyman to deliver an invocation at a Chicago City Council meeting.  The court said in part:

The Establishment Clause requires that the City treat Vavrick the same as it would any other clergy member from any other religion. Assuming, therefore, that the City has not scheduled Vavrick to give an invocation because of his religious beliefs, such practice violates the Establishment Clause.

The court however dismissed plaintiffs' free speech claim finding that plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that City Council invocations are anything other than government speech. It also refused to grant a preliminary injunction.

Suit For Misappropriating Church Funds Not Precluded by Church Autonomy Doctrine

In Buck v. Peace Apostolic Church, Inc., (CA Super. Ct., March 8, 2024), a California trial court rejected the contention that the church autonomy or ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precludes the court from adjudicating a claim that two church officers and directors improperly spent church funds.  The court said in part:

The First Amendment does not immunize the Church or the individual defendants from illegal acts that apply equally to everyone, religious or not. The Plaintiffs alleged and proved that Defendants committed fraud and engaged in false advertising. Defendants solicited donations from the public promising that “no part of the income or assets of this corporation shall ever inure to the benefit of any director, officer, or member thereof or to the benefit of any private person.”... Prince used her position in the church and the representations made by her and by the church to enrich herself. While Brown did not enrich herself, she facilitated the enrichment of her son, Howard Woods. The defendants cannot take money based on a representation that it would be used for charitable purposes and church mission and use it for personal benefit. That's not internal church governance. That's fraud. The activities that occurred in that case are not protected by the First Amendment.... 

On December 19, 2023, the Court ordered injunctive relief. In part, PAC was ordered to post warnings that read “WARNING: A Jury has found that Tamara Swancy-Prince, Priscilla Woods Brown and Peace Apostolic Church have improperly misappropriated donations.” PAC objects to the injunction arguing that the Court misapplied the law.... The Court is simply not convinced that similar abuses won’t recur.

Appeals Court Upholds Preliminary Injunctions Against Texas Treating Gender-Affirming Care as Child Abuse

In Abbott v. Doe, (TX App., March 29, 2024), a Texas state appellate court upheld a trial court's preliminary injunction against the state's Department of Family and Protective Services and its Commissioner. The preliminary injunction barred these defendants from taking investigative or enforcement action based on the state Attorney General's Opinion, the Governor's letter and Statement by the Department implementing it that deemed many of the procedures used to treat gender dysphoria to be child abuse. (See prior posting.) The court, concluding that the trial court had not abused its discretion in entering the injunction, said in part:

The injuries Appellees allege, and that the injunction redresses, are that the application or threatened application of the allegedly invalid rule announced in the Department Statement interferes with or impairs the Doe Parents’ right to make imminent decisions about their child’s medical care, Mary’s guarantee of equal rights and equality under law, and Appellees’ rights to due process because the rule is unconstitutionally vague.  See Tex. Const. art. I, §§ 3, 3a, 19....

The temporary injunction specifically precludes the Department from taking action against Appellees based on the rule announced in the Department Statement, which references the Governor’s Directive and the Attorney General’s opinion....  The temporary injunction remedies Appellees’ injuries because it temporarily reinstates Department policies and procedures for screening reports and conducting investigations as they existed prior to February 22, 2022....  At that time, the Department would have applied the same policies and standards to a report concerning gender-affirming medical care as to any other case of suspected child abuse....  Before February 22, 2022, the Department had no rule that categorically deemed the provision of gender-affirming medical care presumptively abusive or required investigation and a disposition for every report of gender-affirming medical care without regard to medical necessity....

In Muth v. Voe, (TX App, March 29, 2024), a second case upholding two temporary injunctions issued by a different state trial court, the appellate court said in part:

We hold that at a minimum the Families have established a probable right to relief on their claim that the Department Statement is an invalid rule because it is a rule within the meaning of the APA and it was adopted without following proper rulemaking procedures.  This claim is sufficient to support the trial court’s temporary injunctions.

Reuters reports on the decision.

9th Circuit En Banc Refuses to Bar U.S. Transfer of Sacred Apache Site to Copper Mining Company

In Apache Stronghold v. United States, (9th Cir., March 1, 2024), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc, by a vote of 6-5, refused to enjoin the government from transferring to a copper mining company federally-owned forest land that is of significant spiritual value to the Western Apache Indians. The land sits on the third largest deposit of copper ore in the world. The case generated six separate opinions spanning 241 pages. The court's per curiam opinion summarizes the holding:

A majority of the en banc court ...concludes that (1) the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ... and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ... are interpreted uniformly; and (2) preventing access to religious exercise is an example of substantial burden.  A majority of the en banc court therefore overrules Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Service to the extent that it defined a “substantial burden” under RFRA as “imposed only when individuals are forced to choose between following the tenets of their religion and receiving a governmental benefit (Sherbert) or coerced to act contrary to their religious beliefs by the threat of civil or criminal sanctions (Yoder).”...   

A different majority ...concludes that (1) RFRA subsumes, rather than overrides, the outer limits that the Supreme Court’s decision in Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n ... places on what counts as a governmental imposition of a substantial burden on religious exercise; and (2) under Lyng, a disposition of government real property does not impose a substantial burden on religious exercise when it has “no tendency to coerce individuals into acting contrary to their religious beliefs,” does not “discriminate” against religious adherents, does not “penalize” them, and does not deny them “an equal share of the rights, benefits, and privileges enjoyed by other citizens.”... The same majority holds that Apache Stronghold’s claims under the Free Exercise Clause and RFRA fail under these Lyng-based standards and that the claims based on the 1852 Treaty fail for separate reasons.  

We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s order denying the motion for a preliminary injunction.

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision and saying in part: "With the help of Becket, Apache Stronghold has vowed to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court." Los Angeles Times reports on the decision.

7th Circuit Reinstates Indiana Ban on Gender Affirming Care For Minors

In K.C. v. Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, (7th Cir., Feb. 27, 2024), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed a preliminary injunction against Indiana's ban on non-surgical gender transition procedures for minors. The preliminary injunction was granted by an Indiana federal district court in June 2023 (full text of district court opinion). The 7th Circuit issued its Order lifting the injunction, saying that an opinion will follow. In a press release, the ACLU called the 7th Circuit's action "a heartbreaking development for thousands of transgender youth, their doctors, and their families." Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, in a post on X (formerly Twitter) said in part: "We are proud to win this fight against the radicals who continue pushing this horrific practice on our children for ideological and financial reasons." Indy Star reports on the case.

Inmate's Speech and Religion Challenges to His Execution Method Are Not Dismissed, But Execution Not Enjoined

In Smith v. Hamm, (MD AL, Jan. 10, 2024), plaintiff, who is scheduled for execution by nitrogen hypoxia on January 25, challenges the legality of his execution on several grounds.  Among these are his claims that his free speech rights as well as his free exercise rights are violated because masking him will interfere with his making an audible statement and praying audibly during his execution.  The court concluded that plaintiff had made plausible claims that the execution protocol violates his First Amendment free speech rights and his religious free exercise rights under RLUIPA, the First Amendment and the Alabama Religious Freedom Act (as well as his 8th Amendment rights).  Therefore, it denied defendants' motion to dismiss those claims.  The court went on, however, to conclude that plaintiff had not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of those claims. Therefore, the court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to bar execution of plaintiff. At issue in the case is the state's second attempt to execute plaintiff. A previous attempt to execute him by lethal injection failed when after 90 minutes of trying, authorities were unable to access his veins.

Canadian Church Not in Contempt for Violating Covid Restrictions

In New Brunswick v. His Tabernacle Family Church Inc., (KB NB, Feb. 3, 2023), a trial court in the Canadian province of New Brunswick refused to hold a church in contempt for a violation of Covid restrictions because it was not unequivocally clear that the church knew it was in violation of a previous consent decree.  The church, after signing a consent decree, moved its services to a commercial tent in order to avoid restrictions on gatherings in "public indoor spaces." Initially the sides of the tent were raised, but as weather became colder, the church lowered the sides.  The Province contended that once the sidewalls of the tent were down, the tent became an enclosed space. The court said in part:

The Applicant was aware that initially the Respondents were using the commercial tent with the side walls up. My understanding of the Applicant's position is that such activity would not be in violation of the Mandatory Order as it relates to "public indoor spaces." However, once all four side walls of the tent were down, the Applicant was of the view that the Mandatory Order had been breached. At a minimum, it was incumbent on the Applicant to advise the Respondents at what point they would be in breach of the Mandatory Order.... [T]here is a point at which the use of the commercial tent becomes an "enclosed space". However, as I write this decision, it is unclear to me when that occurs and counsel for the Applicant were unable to provide a clear answer to the question.... [T]he court struggles to understand how the Respondents were to know....

Fox News reports on the decision.

6th Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction Protecting Air Force Personnel Who Have Religious Objections to COVID Vaccine

 In Doster v. Kendall, (6th Cir., Nov. 29, 2022), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's grant of a class-wide preliminary injunction barring the Air Force from disciplining Air Force personnel who have sought religious exemptions from the military's COVID vaccine mandate. The injunction however did not interfere with the Air Force’s operational decisions over the Plaintiffs’ duties. The 6th Circuit concluded that plaintiffs' RFRA claim was likely to succeed on the merits, saying in part:

Some 10,000 members with a wide array of duties have requested religious exemptions from this mandate. The Air Force has granted only about 135 of these requests.... Yet it has granted thousands of other exemptions for medical reasons (such as a pregnancy or allergy) or administrative reasons (such as a looming retirement)....

Under RFRA, the Air Force wrongly relied on its “broadly formulated” reasons for the vaccine mandate to deny specific exemptions to the Plaintiffs, especially since it has granted secular exemptions to their colleagues.... The Air Force’s treatment of their exemption requests also reveals common questions for the class: Does the Air Force have a uniform policy of relying on its generalized interests in the vaccine mandate to deny religious exemptions regardless of a service member’s individual circumstances? And does it have a discriminatory policy of broadly denying religious exemptions but broadly granting secular ones? A district court can answer these questions in a “yes” or “no” fashion for the entire class.....

In the abstract, the Air Force may well have a compelling interest in requiring its 501,000 members to get vaccinated. It has also largely achieved this general interest, as evidenced by its ability to vaccinate over 97% of its force.... Under RFRA, however, the Air Force must show that it has a compelling interest in refusing a “specific” exemption to, say, Lieutenant Doster or Airman Colantonio.... To succeed ..., the Air Force must identify the duties of each Plaintiff and offer evidence as to why it has a compelling interest in forcing someone with those duties to take the vaccine or face a sanction....

If the Air Force can permanently retain those who cannot deploy because of their religious objections to a war, it must explain why it cannot permanently retain those who cannot deploy because of their religious objections to a vaccine.

(See prior related posting.) Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Delaware Chancery Court Says Religious Leaders' Challenge to COVID Orders Was Filed in Wrong Court

In In re Covid Related Restrictions on Religious Services, (Del. Ch., Nov. 22, 2022), the Delaware Court of Chancery held that a challenge by religious leaders to now-lifted Covid-related restrictions on religious services should be brought in Superior Court, not in Delaware's Chancery Court which is limited to providing equitable relief. The state's other courts are capable of awarding damages and issuing a declaratory judgment. In reaching that conclusion, however, the court modified the test it has traditionally used to determine whether to grant a permanent injunction. The court said that in order to obtain a permanent injunction, as opposed to a TRO or preliminary injunction, petitioner must only show that remedies at law would be inadequate. Threat of irreparable harm is one way, but not the only way, to show this. The court went on, however, to conclude:

[W]hen a plaintiff seeks to ground equitable jurisdiction on the potential need for a permanent injunction, the pled facts must support a reasonable apprehension that the defendant will act in a manner that will necessitate the injunction’s issuance. Under the reasonable-apprehension test, a plaintiff’s subjective fears are not sufficient. There must be objectively good reasons to think that a permanent injunction will be warranted. The plaintiffs have not pled facts that make it reasonably conceivable that the Governor will re-impose the Challenged Restrictions.

Justice Sotomayor Stays NY Order Requiring Yeshiva University To Recognize LGBTQ Group

In Yeshiva University v. YU Pride Alliance, (Sup. Ct., Sept. 9, 2022),  U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor today issued an order staying a New York trial court's injunction that required Yeshiva University to officially recognize as a student organization an LGBTQ group, YU Pride Alliance. The New York trial court held that applying the public accommodation provisions of the New York City Human Rights Law to Yeshiva does not violate its First Amendment free exercise or free speech rights. (See prior posting.) Justice Sotomayor granted the University's Emergency Application for a Stay Pending Appellate Review without referring the petition to the full Court. However she wrote that her stay was granted "pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court." CNN reports on developments.

Court Lifts Pre-Dobbs Injunction Against Enforcement Of North Carolina Abortion Ban

 In Bryant v. Woodall, (MD NC, Aug 17, 2022), a North Carolina federal district court lifted an injunction it had entered in 2019 enjoining enforcement North Carolina statutes that prohibited pre-viability abortions. The court said in part:

None of the parties argue that the injunction remains legally enforceable, nor could they. The injunction was entered under the authority of Roe and Casey; that precedent has been overruled by Dobbs. Because the power to regulate abortion has been returned to the states, the parties’ suggestion that this court’s injunction is having an effect, whether preventing “confusion,”... or “preserv[ing] Plaintiffs’ ability to provide critical healthcare services,”... suggests the parties are improperly relying upon, and asserting, an injunction that is no longer lawful.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Arizona Law On Rights Of Unborn Is Unconstitutionally Vague

In Isaacson v. Brnovich, (D AZ, July 11, 2022), an Arizona federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the application of Arizona's "Interpretation Policy" to abortion care that is otherwise permissible under Arizona law.  At issue is an Arizona statute that provides:

The laws of this state shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge, on behalf of an unborn child at every stage of development, all rights, privileges and immunities available to other persons, citizens and residents of this state....

The court said in part:

The Interpretation Policy is intolerably vague because it is entirely unclear what it means to construe and interpret Arizona law to “acknowledge” the equal rights of the unborn.....

Because of the indeterminate meaning and applicability of the Interpretation Policy, abortion providers do not have fair notice of whether, if they conform their conduct to these laws, they nonetheless may face criminal, civil, or professional liability under other statutes based solely on what licensing, law enforcement, or judicial officials think it means to “acknowledge” the equal rights of the unborn.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Florida Judge Says 15-Week Abortion Ban Violates State Constitution

Palm Beach Post and Florida ACLU report that yesterday, a Florida state circuit court judge ruled from the bench that Florida's ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy violates the Florida Constitution's protection of the right of privacy. However the judge has not yet issued a formal written opinion or entered a preliminary injunction, so the 15 week ban will go into effect today until an injunction actually issues.

1st Circuit: Employees With Religious Objection To Vaccine Mandate Not Entitled To Injunction

In Together Employees v. Mass General Brigham, Inc., (1st Cir., April 27, 2022), the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals denied a preliminary injunction to hospital employees who were denied religious exemptions from the hospital's COVID vaccine mandate. The court held that the employees failed to show the irreparable injury necessary to obtain injunctive relief, saying in part:

It is black-letter law that "money damages ordinarily provide an appropriate remedy" for unlawful termination of employment.

5th Circuit: United Airlines Employees Irreparably Injured By Religious Coercion Over COVID Vaccine

In Sambrano v. United Airlines, (5th Cir., Feb. 17, 2022), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 per curiam decision, reversed a Texas federal district court's decision that no "irreparable injury" had been suffered by United Airlines employees who were placed on unpaid leave after they refused for religious reasons to comply with the company's COVID vaccine mandate.  The district court held that the employees were not entitled to a preliminary injunction because their loss of income could be remedied by an award of damages in an action under Title VII.  The 5th Circuit majority disagreed, saying in part:

Critically, we do not decide whether United or any other entity may impose a vaccine mandate. Nor do we decide whether plaintiffs are ultimately entitled to a preliminary injunction. The district court denied such an injunction on one narrow ground; we reverse on that one narrow ground and remand for further consideration....

Properly understood, the plaintiffs are alleging two distinct harms— one of which is reparable ..., and the other of which is irreparable.... The first is United’s decision to place them on indefinite unpaid leave; that harm, and any harm that flows from it, can be remedied through backpay, reinstatement, or otherwise. The second form of harm flows from United’s decision to coerce the plaintiffs into violating their religious convictions; that harm and that harm alone is irreparable and supports a preliminary injunction.

Judge Smith wrote a stinging 56-page dissent, saying in part:

In its alacrity to play CEO of a multinational corporation, the majority shatters every dish in the china shop. It rewrites Title VII to create a new cause of action. It twists the record to fit that invention. It defies our precedent and the commands of the Supreme Court. But this majority is no senseless bull. Knowing exactly what it has wrought, the majority declares that its unsigned writing will apply to these parties only. By stripping its judgment of precedential effect, the majority all but admits that its screed could not survive the scrutiny of the en banc court....

For every conceivable reason that the plaintiffs could lose this appeal, they should. The statute does not allow the relief they seek. Nor do our precedents; if they did, the Supreme Court has overruled them. If they have not been overruled, fifty years of precedent and centuries of Anglo-American remedies law show that preliminary relief may not issue. If it could issue, it shouldn’t, because the only plaintiffs with standing claim no harm from the “impossible choice” between full postjudgment relief and eternal damnation.

Chicago Tribune reports on the decision.

5th Circuit Denies Injunction Pending Appeal In Challenge To Airline's Vaccine Mandate

In Sambrano v. United Airlines, (5th Cir., Dec. 13, 2021), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, by a 2-1 vote, denied an injunction while an appeal is pending in a challenge by United Airlines employees to the company's vaccine mandate that lacks religious or medical exemptions. The majority in a 3-sentence opinion relied on the reasons stated by the district court in denying a preliminary injunction: namely plaintiffs must show "irreparable injury" in order to obtain an injunction, and mere loss of income is not irreparable-- it can be remedied by recovery of damages. (See prior posting.) 

Judge Ho filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Vaccine mandates like the one United is attempting to impose here present a crisis of conscience for many people of faith. It forces them to choose between the two most profound obligations they will ever assume—holding true to their religious commitments and feeding and housing their children.

To many, this is the most horrifying of Hobson’s choices. And it is a quintessentially irreparable injury, warranting preliminary injunctive relief.

7th Circuit Denies Preliminary Injunction Against Prior Illinois Limits On Worship Services

In Cassell v. Snyders, (7th Cir., March 8, 2021), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to issue a preliminary injunction against a now-superseded Illinois COVID-19 order that prohibited public gatherings of more than ten people, including religious services. The court said in part:

Intervening authority from the Supreme Court offers plaintiffs a greater prospect for success on the merits of their First Amendment claim than either the district court or we had expected. See Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020). Yet recent Supreme Court authority has also indicated that equitable considerations weigh against granting a preliminary injunction at this time, when the prospect of irreparable injury to the plaintiffs is very low....

Even if the plaintiffs now appear more likely to succeed on the merits of their free exercise claim, there simply is no compelling need for preliminary relief against these long-expired orders, and there is every reason to expect that even if Illinois in the future believes some binding restrictions on worship services are needed, it will act with a close eye on the Supreme Court’s latest pronouncements on the subject, including the need for measures closely tailored to meet public health needs.

[Thanks to Jeff Pasek for the lead.]

9th Circuit Refuses Emergency Injunction For Apache Tribal Members

In a 2-1 decision in Apache Stronghold v. United States, (9th Cir., March 5, 2021), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of appeals refused to issue an injunction pending appeal in the attempt by Apache tribal members to prevent the transfer of sacred Apache ceremonial ground to Resolution Copper. At the beginning of this month, the Biden Administration delayed the pending transfer by withdrawing a previous environmental impact statement. (See prior posting.) The 9th Circuit majority said in part:

The Government has averred that USFS “will not proceed to convey any right, title, and/or interest... to Resolution Copper” until after publication of a new FEIS, which will take “months.” The Government has also stated, under penalty of perjury, that USFS “will provide 30-days advance notice” to Apache Stronghold prior to the publication of a new FEIS. These representations mean that Apache Stronghold has not shown that it “needs relief within 21 days to avoid irreparable harm” pursuant to its request for an emergency stay.

Judge Bumatay filed a lengthy dissent, saying in part:

We are asked to trust the Government that, left to its own devices, it will not transfer the land to Resolution Copper in the near future. Faced with such a substantial harm to the Western Apaches’ free exercise rights, we should require more than the Government’s say-so.