In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, former U.S. Attorney General William P. Barr pushed back against claims by the San Carlos Apache Tribe, Stronghold Apache, and a coalition of environmental groups that Oak Flat is sacred land that should not be transferred to a foreign-owned mining company.
Barr argues that this interpretation of religious freedom dangerously expands its legal boundaries. While Americans have the right to practice their religion, he maintains that this right does not equate to permanent control over federal land. Courts have repeatedly ruled that incidental effects on religious practice do not constitute constitutional violations when the government manages its land to serve broader public interests.
Weighing in on a contentious legal battle over land use in Arizona, Barr criticized efforts to block development of one of the world’s largest untapped copper deposits. The proposed mine at Oak Flat—a 6.7-square-mile tract of federal land in Arizona’s “Copper Triangle”—has sparked national debate, not only because of its economic significance but also due to religious liberty claims at the heart of the opposition.
Opponents argue that Oak Flat is a sacred site central to Apache religious practice, and that mining operations would irreparably harm their ability to worship. Their lawsuit, supported by religious freedom advocates, claims that the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protect their continued access to the land for religious use.
The federal government approved a land exchange in 2014, transferring Oak Flat to Resolution Copper in exchange for over 5,000 acres of environmentally and culturally valuable land elsewhere. Supporters of the deal argue that the project will help meet critical national needs—fueling artificial intelligence technologies, supporting defense systems, and reducing U.S. dependence on imported copper.
Barr warns that accepting the plaintiffs’ legal argument could give religious groups sweeping veto power over public projects, setting a precedent that threatens infrastructure development and public land management nationwide. While spiritual beliefs should be respected, he emphasizes that the Constitution guarantees religious groups equal—not exceptional—treatment in the use of public resources.
Ultimately, the case raises urgent questions about how to balance religious liberty with the federal government’s obligation to manage public lands in the national interest—questions with implications far beyond Oak Flat, potentially reshaping how religious claims are treated on government-owned property across the country.
