By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The transfer of federal forest land in Arizona to Resolution Copper, a joint venture of international companies, has been finalized for the development of a large copper mine. This transfer, mandated by Congress in 2014, marks the culmination of years of legal battles by the San Carlos Apache Tribe and environmentalists seeking to protect Oak Flat, a site of immense religious and cultural significance. Despite the appeals court acknowledging the destruction of sacred sites and profound harm to Native religious practices, it ruled that existing legal challenges were unlikely to succeed. A group of Apache women is now appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court as a final attempt to halt the project, which proponents argue will bolster the nation’s energy independence and economy.
Read the original article here
Apache women are now turning to the courts to protect sacred federal land from being handed over for copper mining, a move that sparks deep concern and a sense of historical déjà vu. This isn’t a new fight, as the land transfer was actually mandated by Congress back in 2014, tucked away within a national defense spending bill that was signed into law by President Barack Obama. The U.S. Forest Service’s attorneys have repeatedly argued in court that their hands are tied by this congressional mandate, leaving them with no discretionary power in the matter.
The situation highlights a contentious political tactic known as “riders,” where unrelated provisions are attached to essential legislation. The idea is that if a bill is crucial and likely to pass anyway, politicians can sneak in less popular or controversial measures without them needing to stand on their own merit. In this case, the land transfer for copper mining became a rider on a must-pass bill, effectively forcing its inclusion. This practice is viewed by many as a way for politicians to bypass proper debate and scrutiny, bundling desirable provisions with those that are problematic.
The controversy intensifies when considering the historical context of broken treaties and the mistreatment of Native American populations by the U.S. government. For generations, there’s been a pattern of land exploitation and environmental damage, often disproportionately affecting Indigenous communities. The current legal battle brings this long-standing grievance to the forefront, with Apache women acting as the primary advocates for the preservation of their ancestral lands. The fact that treaties are still being disregarded in the 21st century is a stark reminder of the ongoing struggles faced by Native Americans.
This particular court case has been ongoing since the early days of the Biden administration in 2021, but its roots trace back to that 2014 law signed by President Obama. It’s a complex legal and ethical quagmire, especially when viewed through the lens of promises made and subsequently broken. The underlying legislation, driven by the inclusion of a rider, suggests a system where essential governmental functions can be held hostage to push through agendas that might otherwise face significant opposition.
The frustration with riders is palpable, with many expressing a desire for legislation to be judged on its own merits. When essential bills, like those funding vital services, are loaded with unrelated and often detrimental riders, it creates a situation where compromise can feel like capitulation to injustice. This tactic is seen as a way to leverage political necessity into enacting policies that might be deeply unpopular or harmful if presented independently.
The current administration, regardless of party, finds itself grappling with the consequences of these legislative maneuvers. While the original law was signed under a Democratic president, the ongoing legal battle and the continuation of the land transfer are occurring under a Democratic administration. The argument that “Republicans did this” points to a historical pattern of legislative strategies that many find abhorrent, but the reality is that the rider was embedded in a bill that required passage, and the current legal challenges are addressing a mandate that remains in effect.
The involvement of the U.S. Forest Service, stating they have no discretion, underscores the power of legislative mandates. It raises questions about accountability when a federal agency is compelled by law to proceed with actions that are met with strong local and tribal opposition. The argument that the land exchange was mandated by Congress, even if controversial, presents a significant hurdle for those seeking to halt the mining operations.
Looking at the broader political landscape, some attribute this situation to a consistent ideological opposition to robust governance, particularly from certain conservative factions. The argument is that a persistent effort to dismantle or undermine governmental capacity has led to a situation where laws are enacted through contentious means, and reform is met with obstruction. This creates a cycle where progress on social justice or environmental protection is constantly undermined by legislative maneuvers designed to serve narrow interests.
The broader implication is a system where political expediency can override fundamental rights and environmental stewardship. The Apache women’s fight is not just about a parcel of land; it’s about the right to protect sacred sites, maintain cultural heritage, and safeguard the environment from irreversible damage caused by industrial extraction. Their appeal to the courts is a desperate attempt to find recourse when legislative and executive branches appear bound by a past decision, however controversial. The outcome of this legal intervention will undoubtedly have far-reaching consequences, not only for the Apache people but also for the ongoing debate about how federal lands are managed and the rights of Indigenous communities in the United States.