Oak Flat was transferred to Resolution Copper in March 2026 despite being a sacred Apache site for centuries, setting a precedent that mining executive orders can override indigenous religious freedom claims

On March 16, 2026, the US Forest Service transferred 2,422 acres of Oak Flat (Chi'chil Bildagoteel) in Arizona to Resolution Copper, a joint venture of Rio Tinto and BHP. The site is sacred to the San Carlos Apache Tribe, who have used it for religious ceremonies, burials, and coming-of-age rituals for centuries. Resolution Copper plans to extract 20 million tons of copper via block-cave mining, a technique that will eventually create a crater more than 1,000 feet deep and up to two miles across, permanently destroying the surface landscape and the religious practices that depend on it. The transfer was authorized by a provision inserted into the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act, a defense spending bill, bypassing the normal public lands process. Oak Flat had been protected from mining since 1955 under an executive order signed by President Eisenhower. Trump's March 2025 executive order fast-tracking domestic mining projects placed Oak Flat on a priority list alongside eight other mining projects. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied an injunction three days before the transfer, and the Supreme Court rejected the Apache plea 6-2. The copper under Oak Flat is valued at approximately $200 billion at current prices and could supply up to one-quarter of US copper demand for 40 years. This economic calculus drove the decision, but the precedent it sets extends far beyond one mine. The case established that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not protect indigenous sacred sites on federal land from being transferred to private mining companies through legislative riders. Apache women filed an emergency Supreme Court petition in March 2026 to prevent the transfer; it was denied. This problem persists because indigenous sacred sites on federal land have no affirmative statutory protection comparable to the National Historic Preservation Act's treatment of archaeological sites. The legal framework treats religious freedom as a negative right (the government cannot prohibit practice) rather than a positive right (the government must preserve the conditions that make practice possible). When the land itself is the church, transferring the land to a mining company destroys the church, but courts have held this does not constitute a 'substantial burden' on religious exercise under existing law.