Appeal

Judge rules against saints’ statues on Massachusetts government building #Catholic Statues of St. Florian (at left) and St. Michael the Archangel (at right) are currently barred from appearing on the planned public safety building of Quincy, Massachusetts. / Credit: Courtesy of Office of Mayor Thomas Koch Boston, Massachusetts, Oct 16, 2025 / 12:18 pm (CNA). A Massachusetts trial court judge has issued an order blocking the installation of statues of two Catholic saints on a new public safety building in the city of Quincy, setting up a likely appeal that may determine how the state treats separation of church and state disputes going forward.The 10-foot-high bronze statues of St. Michael the Archangel and St. Florian, which were scheduled to be installed on the building’s façade this month, will instead await a higher court’s decision.The statues cost an estimated $850,000, part of the new, $175 million public safety building that will serve as police headquarters and administration offices for the Boston suburb’s fire department.Quincy Mayor Thomas Koch, a practicing Catholic, has said he chose St. Michael the Archangel because he is the patron of police officers and St. Florian because he is the patron of firefighters, not to send a message about religion.But the judge said the statues can’t be separated from the saints’ Catholic connections.“The complaint here plausibly alleges that the statues at issue convey a message endorsing one religion over others,” Norfolk County Superior Court Judge William Sullivan wrote in a 26-page ruling Oct. 14.The judge noted that the statues “represent two Catholic saints.”“The statues, particularly when considered together, patently endorse Catholic beliefs,” the judge wrote.The plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit challenging the statues — 15 city residents represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts — have amassed facts that “plausibly suggest that an objective observer would view these statues on the façade of the public safety building as primarily endorsing Catholicism/Christianity and conveying a distinctly religious message,” the judge wrote.Rachel Davidson, staff attorney at the ACLU of Massachusetts, who argued the case during a lengthy court hearing on Sept. 19, praised the judge’s decision.“This ruling affirms the bedrock principle that our government cannot favor one religion above others, or religious beliefs over nonreligious beliefs,” Davidson said in a written statement. “We are grateful to the court for acknowledging the immediate harm that the installation of these statues would cause and for ensuring that Quincy residents can continue to make their case for the proper separation of church and state, as the Massachusetts Constitution requires.”The mayor said the city will appeal.“We chose the statues of Michael and Florian to honor Quincy’s first responders, not to promote any religion,” Koch said in a written statement provided to the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner, by a spokesman. “These figures are recognized symbols of courage and sacrifice in police and fire communities across the world. We will appeal this ruling so our city can continue to celebrate and inspire the men and women who protect us.” The lawsuit, which was filed May 27 in Norfolk County Superior Court in Dedham, relies on the Massachusetts Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution, but there is a tie-in.In 1979, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court adopted the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1971 three-pronged “Lemon test” when considering church and state cases — whether a law concerning religion has “a secular legislative purpose,” whether “its principal or primary effect … neither advances [n]or inhibits religion,” and whether it fosters “excessive entanglement between government and religion.” The state’s highest court also added a fourth standard — whether a “challenged practice” has “divisive political potential.”But in June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ditched the Lemon test in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, a case involving prayers offered by a high school football coach in Washington state.If the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which is the ultimate interpreter of state law, takes the Quincy statues dispute, it would be the first time the court has considered a case on point since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kennedy decision.This story was first published by the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner, and has been adapted by CNA.
Read More

Judge rules against saints’ statues on Massachusetts government building #Catholic Statues of St. Florian (at left) and St. Michael the Archangel (at right) are currently barred from appearing on the planned public safety building of Quincy, Massachusetts. / Credit: Courtesy of Office of Mayor Thomas Koch Boston, Massachusetts, Oct 16, 2025 / 12:18 pm (CNA). A Massachusetts trial court judge has issued an order blocking the installation of statues of two Catholic saints on a new public safety building in the city of Quincy, setting up a likely appeal that may determine how the state treats separation of church and state disputes going forward.The 10-foot-high bronze statues of St. Michael the Archangel and St. Florian, which were scheduled to be installed on the building’s façade this month, will instead await a higher court’s decision.The statues cost an estimated $850,000, part of the new, $175 million public safety building that will serve as police headquarters and administration offices for the Boston suburb’s fire department.Quincy Mayor Thomas Koch, a practicing Catholic, has said he chose St. Michael the Archangel because he is the patron of police officers and St. Florian because he is the patron of firefighters, not to send a message about religion.But the judge said the statues can’t be separated from the saints’ Catholic connections.“The complaint here plausibly alleges that the statues at issue convey a message endorsing one religion over others,” Norfolk County Superior Court Judge William Sullivan wrote in a 26-page ruling Oct. 14.The judge noted that the statues “represent two Catholic saints.”“The statues, particularly when considered together, patently endorse Catholic beliefs,” the judge wrote.The plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit challenging the statues — 15 city residents represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts — have amassed facts that “plausibly suggest that an objective observer would view these statues on the façade of the public safety building as primarily endorsing Catholicism/Christianity and conveying a distinctly religious message,” the judge wrote.Rachel Davidson, staff attorney at the ACLU of Massachusetts, who argued the case during a lengthy court hearing on Sept. 19, praised the judge’s decision.“This ruling affirms the bedrock principle that our government cannot favor one religion above others, or religious beliefs over nonreligious beliefs,” Davidson said in a written statement. “We are grateful to the court for acknowledging the immediate harm that the installation of these statues would cause and for ensuring that Quincy residents can continue to make their case for the proper separation of church and state, as the Massachusetts Constitution requires.”The mayor said the city will appeal.“We chose the statues of Michael and Florian to honor Quincy’s first responders, not to promote any religion,” Koch said in a written statement provided to the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner, by a spokesman. “These figures are recognized symbols of courage and sacrifice in police and fire communities across the world. We will appeal this ruling so our city can continue to celebrate and inspire the men and women who protect us.” The lawsuit, which was filed May 27 in Norfolk County Superior Court in Dedham, relies on the Massachusetts Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution, but there is a tie-in.In 1979, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court adopted the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1971 three-pronged “Lemon test” when considering church and state cases — whether a law concerning religion has “a secular legislative purpose,” whether “its principal or primary effect … neither advances [n]or inhibits religion,” and whether it fosters “excessive entanglement between government and religion.” The state’s highest court also added a fourth standard — whether a “challenged practice” has “divisive political potential.”But in June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ditched the Lemon test in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, a case involving prayers offered by a high school football coach in Washington state.If the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which is the ultimate interpreter of state law, takes the Quincy statues dispute, it would be the first time the court has considered a case on point since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kennedy decision.This story was first published by the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner, and has been adapted by CNA.

unitedyam

Statues of St. Florian (at left) and St. Michael the Archangel (at right) are currently barred from appearing on the planned public safety building of Quincy, Massachusetts. / Credit: Courtesy of Office of Mayor Thomas Koch

Boston, Massachusetts, Oct 16, 2025 / 12:18 pm (CNA).

A Massachusetts trial court judge has issued an order blocking the installation of statues of two Catholic saints on a new public safety building in the city of Quincy, setting up a likely appeal that may determine how the state treats separation of church and state disputes going forward.

The 10-foot-high bronze statues of St. Michael the Archangel and St. Florian, which were scheduled to be installed on the building’s façade this month, will instead await a higher court’s decision.

The statues cost an estimated $850,000, part of the new, $175 million public safety building that will serve as police headquarters and administration offices for the Boston suburb’s fire department.

Quincy Mayor Thomas Koch, a practicing Catholic, has said he chose St. Michael the Archangel because he is the patron of police officers and St. Florian because he is the patron of firefighters, not to send a message about religion.

But the judge said the statues can’t be separated from the saints’ Catholic connections.

“The complaint here plausibly alleges that the statues at issue convey a message endorsing one religion over others,” Norfolk County Superior Court Judge William Sullivan wrote in a 26-page ruling Oct. 14.

The judge noted that the statues “represent two Catholic saints.”

“The statues, particularly when considered together, patently endorse Catholic beliefs,” the judge wrote.

The plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit challenging the statues — 15 city residents represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts — have amassed facts that “plausibly suggest that an objective observer would view these statues on the façade of the public safety building as primarily endorsing Catholicism/Christianity and conveying a distinctly religious message,” the judge wrote.

Rachel Davidson, staff attorney at the ACLU of Massachusetts, who argued the case during a lengthy court hearing on Sept. 19, praised the judge’s decision.

“This ruling affirms the bedrock principle that our government cannot favor one religion above others, or religious beliefs over nonreligious beliefs,” Davidson said in a written statement. “We are grateful to the court for acknowledging the immediate harm that the installation of these statues would cause and for ensuring that Quincy residents can continue to make their case for the proper separation of church and state, as the Massachusetts Constitution requires.”

The mayor said the city will appeal.

“We chose the statues of Michael and Florian to honor Quincy’s first responders, not to promote any religion,” Koch said in a written statement provided to the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner, by a spokesman. “These figures are recognized symbols of courage and sacrifice in police and fire communities across the world. We will appeal this ruling so our city can continue to celebrate and inspire the men and women who protect us.” The lawsuit, which was filed May 27 in Norfolk County Superior Court in Dedham, relies on the Massachusetts Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution, but there is a tie-in.

In 1979, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court adopted the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1971 three-pronged “Lemon test” when considering church and state cases — whether a law concerning religion has “a secular legislative purpose,” whether “its principal or primary effect … neither advances [n]or inhibits religion,” and whether it fosters “excessive entanglement between government and religion.” 

The state’s highest court also added a fourth standard — whether a “challenged practice” has “divisive political potential.”

But in June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ditched the Lemon test in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, a case involving prayers offered by a high school football coach in Washington state.

If the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which is the ultimate interpreter of state law, takes the Quincy statues dispute, it would be the first time the court has considered a case on point since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kennedy decision.

This story was first published by the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner, and has been adapted by CNA.

Read More
Washington state drops effort to make priests violate seal of confession in reporting law #Catholic null / Credit: Brian A Jackson/Shutterstock CNA Staff, Oct 10, 2025 / 14:37 pm (CNA). Officials in Washington state have agreed to back off a controversial effort to force priests there to violate the seal of confession as part of a mandatory abuse reporting law. A motion filed in federal district court on Oct. 10 affirmed that state and local governments would stop attempting to require priests to report child abuse learned during the sacrament of reconciliation.The state attorney general’s office on Oct. 10 said in a press release that clergy would remain mandatory reporters under state law, but prosecutors would agree “not to enforce reporting requirements for information clergy learn solely through confession or its equivalent in other faiths.”The agreement brings an end to a high-profile and controversial effort by Washington government leaders to violate one of the Catholic Church’s most sacred and inviolable directives, one that requires priests to maintain absolute secrecy over what they learn during confession or else face excommunication. Washington’s revised mandatory reporting law, passed by the state Legislature earlier this year and signed by Gov. Robert Ferguson, added clergy to the list of mandatory abuse reporters in the state. But it didn’t include an exemption for information learned in the confessional, explicitly leaving priests out of a “privileged communication” exception afforded to other professionals.The state’s bishops successfully blocked the law in federal court in July, though the threat of the statute still loomed if the state government was successful at appeal. In the July ruling, District Judge David Estudillo said there was “no question” that the law burdened the free exercise of religion.“In situations where [priests] hear confessions related to child abuse or neglect, [the rule] places them in the position of either complying with the requirements of their faith or violating the law,” the judge wrote.The state’s reversal on Oct. 10 brought cheers from religious liberty advocates, including the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented state bishops in their suit against the state government. “Washington was wise to walk away from this draconian law and allow Catholic clergy to continue ministering to the faithful,” Becket CEO and President Mark Rienzi said. “This is a victory for religious freedom and for common sense. Priests should never be forced to make the impossible choice of betraying their sacred vows or going to jail.” Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel John Bursch on Friday said the legal advocacy group was “pleased the state agreed to swiftly restore the constitutionally protected freedom of churches and priests.” The legal group had represented Orthodox churches and a priest in their own suit. “Washington was targeting priests by compelling them to break the sacred confidentiality of confession while protecting other confidential communications, like those between attorneys and their clients. That’s rank religious discrimination,” Bursch said. On X, the Washington State Catholic Conference said that Church leaders in the state “consistently supported the law’s broader goal of strengthening protections for minors.” Church leaders “asked only for a narrow exemption to protect the sacrament of confession,” the conference said. “In every other setting other than the confessional, the Church has long supported — and continues to support — mandatory reporting,” the conference added. “We’re grateful Washington ultimately recognized it can prevent abuse without forcing priests to violate their sacred vows.”The legal fight had drawn the backing of a wide variety of supporters and backers, including the Trump administration, Bishop Robert Barron, and a global priests’ group, among numerous others.Well ahead of the law’s passage, Spokane Bishop Thomas Daly had promised Catholics in the state that priests would face prison time rather than violate the seal of confession. “I want to assure you that your shepherds, bishop and priests, are committed to keeping the seal of confession — even to the point of going to jail,” Daly told the faithful in April 2023.The Washington bishops, meanwhile, noted on Oct. 10 that the Catholic Church has upheld the sanctity of confession “for centuries.” “Priests have been imprisoned, tortured, and even killed for upholding the seal of confession,” the state Catholic conference said. “Penitents today need the same assurance that their participation in a holy sacrament will remain free from government interference.”
Read More

Washington state drops effort to make priests violate seal of confession in reporting law #Catholic null / Credit: Brian A Jackson/Shutterstock CNA Staff, Oct 10, 2025 / 14:37 pm (CNA). Officials in Washington state have agreed to back off a controversial effort to force priests there to violate the seal of confession as part of a mandatory abuse reporting law. A motion filed in federal district court on Oct. 10 affirmed that state and local governments would stop attempting to require priests to report child abuse learned during the sacrament of reconciliation.The state attorney general’s office on Oct. 10 said in a press release that clergy would remain mandatory reporters under state law, but prosecutors would agree “not to enforce reporting requirements for information clergy learn solely through confession or its equivalent in other faiths.”The agreement brings an end to a high-profile and controversial effort by Washington government leaders to violate one of the Catholic Church’s most sacred and inviolable directives, one that requires priests to maintain absolute secrecy over what they learn during confession or else face excommunication. Washington’s revised mandatory reporting law, passed by the state Legislature earlier this year and signed by Gov. Robert Ferguson, added clergy to the list of mandatory abuse reporters in the state. But it didn’t include an exemption for information learned in the confessional, explicitly leaving priests out of a “privileged communication” exception afforded to other professionals.The state’s bishops successfully blocked the law in federal court in July, though the threat of the statute still loomed if the state government was successful at appeal. In the July ruling, District Judge David Estudillo said there was “no question” that the law burdened the free exercise of religion.“In situations where [priests] hear confessions related to child abuse or neglect, [the rule] places them in the position of either complying with the requirements of their faith or violating the law,” the judge wrote.The state’s reversal on Oct. 10 brought cheers from religious liberty advocates, including the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented state bishops in their suit against the state government. “Washington was wise to walk away from this draconian law and allow Catholic clergy to continue ministering to the faithful,” Becket CEO and President Mark Rienzi said. “This is a victory for religious freedom and for common sense. Priests should never be forced to make the impossible choice of betraying their sacred vows or going to jail.” Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel John Bursch on Friday said the legal advocacy group was “pleased the state agreed to swiftly restore the constitutionally protected freedom of churches and priests.” The legal group had represented Orthodox churches and a priest in their own suit. “Washington was targeting priests by compelling them to break the sacred confidentiality of confession while protecting other confidential communications, like those between attorneys and their clients. That’s rank religious discrimination,” Bursch said. On X, the Washington State Catholic Conference said that Church leaders in the state “consistently supported the law’s broader goal of strengthening protections for minors.” Church leaders “asked only for a narrow exemption to protect the sacrament of confession,” the conference said. “In every other setting other than the confessional, the Church has long supported — and continues to support — mandatory reporting,” the conference added. “We’re grateful Washington ultimately recognized it can prevent abuse without forcing priests to violate their sacred vows.”The legal fight had drawn the backing of a wide variety of supporters and backers, including the Trump administration, Bishop Robert Barron, and a global priests’ group, among numerous others.Well ahead of the law’s passage, Spokane Bishop Thomas Daly had promised Catholics in the state that priests would face prison time rather than violate the seal of confession. “I want to assure you that your shepherds, bishop and priests, are committed to keeping the seal of confession — even to the point of going to jail,” Daly told the faithful in April 2023.The Washington bishops, meanwhile, noted on Oct. 10 that the Catholic Church has upheld the sanctity of confession “for centuries.” “Priests have been imprisoned, tortured, and even killed for upholding the seal of confession,” the state Catholic conference said. “Penitents today need the same assurance that their participation in a holy sacrament will remain free from government interference.”

unitedyam

null / Credit: Brian A Jackson/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Oct 10, 2025 / 14:37 pm (CNA).

Officials in Washington state have agreed to back off a controversial effort to force priests there to violate the seal of confession as part of a mandatory abuse reporting law.

A motion filed in federal district court on Oct. 10 affirmed that state and local governments would stop attempting to require priests to report child abuse learned during the sacrament of reconciliation.

The state attorney general’s office on Oct. 10 said in a press release that clergy would remain mandatory reporters under state law, but prosecutors would agree “not to enforce reporting requirements for information clergy learn solely through confession or its equivalent in other faiths.”

The agreement brings an end to a high-profile and controversial effort by Washington government leaders to violate one of the Catholic Church’s most sacred and inviolable directives, one that requires priests to maintain absolute secrecy over what they learn during confession or else face excommunication.

Washington’s revised mandatory reporting law, passed by the state Legislature earlier this year and signed by Gov. Robert Ferguson, added clergy to the list of mandatory abuse reporters in the state. But it didn’t include an exemption for information learned in the confessional, explicitly leaving priests out of a “privileged communication” exception afforded to other professionals.

The state’s bishops successfully blocked the law in federal court in July, though the threat of the statute still loomed if the state government was successful at appeal.

In the July ruling, District Judge David Estudillo said there was “no question” that the law burdened the free exercise of religion.

“In situations where [priests] hear confessions related to child abuse or neglect, [the rule] places them in the position of either complying with the requirements of their faith or violating the law,” the judge wrote.

The state’s reversal on Oct. 10 brought cheers from religious liberty advocates, including the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented state bishops in their suit against the state government.

“Washington was wise to walk away from this draconian law and allow Catholic clergy to continue ministering to the faithful,” Becket CEO and President Mark Rienzi said.

“This is a victory for religious freedom and for common sense. Priests should never be forced to make the impossible choice of betraying their sacred vows or going to jail.”

Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel John Bursch on Friday said the legal advocacy group was “pleased the state agreed to swiftly restore the constitutionally protected freedom of churches and priests.” The legal group had represented Orthodox churches and a priest in their own suit.

“Washington was targeting priests by compelling them to break the sacred confidentiality of confession while protecting other confidential communications, like those between attorneys and their clients. That’s rank religious discrimination,” Bursch said.

On X, the Washington State Catholic Conference said that Church leaders in the state “consistently supported the law’s broader goal of strengthening protections for minors.”

Church leaders “asked only for a narrow exemption to protect the sacrament of confession,” the conference said.

“In every other setting other than the confessional, the Church has long supported — and continues to support — mandatory reporting,” the conference added. “We’re grateful Washington ultimately recognized it can prevent abuse without forcing priests to violate their sacred vows.”

The legal fight had drawn the backing of a wide variety of supporters and backers, including the Trump administration, Bishop Robert Barron, and a global priests’ group, among numerous others.

Well ahead of the law’s passage, Spokane Bishop Thomas Daly had promised Catholics in the state that priests would face prison time rather than violate the seal of confession. “I want to assure you that your shepherds, bishop and priests, are committed to keeping the seal of confession — even to the point of going to jail,” Daly told the faithful in April 2023.

The Washington bishops, meanwhile, noted on Oct. 10 that the Catholic Church has upheld the sanctity of confession “for centuries.”

“Priests have been imprisoned, tortured, and even killed for upholding the seal of confession,” the state Catholic conference said. “Penitents today need the same assurance that their participation in a holy sacrament will remain free from government interference.”

Read More
Native American group loses religious freedom appeal at Supreme Court #Catholic On Oct. 6, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a rehearing of the case filed by Apache Stronghold, a coalition of Native Americans and their supporters, that would have prevented the sale of a Native American sacred site to a mining company. / Credit: Photo courtesy of Becket CNA Staff, Oct 8, 2025 / 12:00 pm (CNA). A Native American group working to stop the destruction of a centuries-old religious ritual site has lost a last-ditch appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to halt the transfer and obliteration of the Arizona parcel.The Supreme Court in an unsigned order on Oct. 6 said Apache Stronghold’s petition for a rehearing had been denied. The court did not give a reason for the denial.Justice Neil Gorsuch would have granted the request, the order noted. Justice Samuel Alito, meanwhile, “took no part in the consideration or decision” of the order. The denial likely deals a death blow to the Apache group’s attempts to halt the destruction of Oak Flat, which has been viewed as a sacred site by Apaches and other Native American groups for hundreds of years and has been used extensively for religious rituals. The federal government is selling the land to the multinational Resolution Copper company, which plans to destroy the site as part of a copper mining operation. The coalition had brought the lawsuit to the Supreme Court earlier this year under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, arguing that the sale of the site would violate the decades-old federal statute restricting the government’s ability to encroach on religious liberty. The high court in May refused to hear the case. Gorsuch dissented from that decision as well, arguing that the court “should at least have troubled itself to hear [the] case” before “allowing the government to destroy the Apaches’ sacred site.”Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the May ruling as well, though he did not add his dissent to the Oct. 6 denial of the appeal. In a statement, Apache Stronghold said that while the decision was "deeply disappointing, the fight to protect Oak Flat is far from over." The group vowed to "continue pressing our cases in the lower courts.""Oak Flat deserves the same respect and protection this country has long given to other places of worship," the group said. The coalition has garnered support from major Catholic backers in its religious liberty bid. Last year the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops joined an amicus brief arguing that lower court decisions allowing the sale of Oak Flat represent “a grave misunderstanding” of religious freedom law. The Knights of Columbus similarly filed a brief in support of the Apaches, arguing that the decision to allow the property to be mined applies an “atextual constraint” to the federal religious freedom law with “no grounding in the statute itself.”Though Apache Stronghold appears to have exhausted its legal options, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said on Aug. 18 that the Oak Flat site would not be transferred to Resolution Copper amid emergency petitions from the San Carlos Apache Tribe as well as the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition. That dispute is still playing out at federal court.
Read More

Native American group loses religious freedom appeal at Supreme Court #Catholic On Oct. 6, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a rehearing of the case filed by Apache Stronghold, a coalition of Native Americans and their supporters, that would have prevented the sale of a Native American sacred site to a mining company. / Credit: Photo courtesy of Becket CNA Staff, Oct 8, 2025 / 12:00 pm (CNA). A Native American group working to stop the destruction of a centuries-old religious ritual site has lost a last-ditch appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to halt the transfer and obliteration of the Arizona parcel.The Supreme Court in an unsigned order on Oct. 6 said Apache Stronghold’s petition for a rehearing had been denied. The court did not give a reason for the denial.Justice Neil Gorsuch would have granted the request, the order noted. Justice Samuel Alito, meanwhile, “took no part in the consideration or decision” of the order. The denial likely deals a death blow to the Apache group’s attempts to halt the destruction of Oak Flat, which has been viewed as a sacred site by Apaches and other Native American groups for hundreds of years and has been used extensively for religious rituals. The federal government is selling the land to the multinational Resolution Copper company, which plans to destroy the site as part of a copper mining operation. The coalition had brought the lawsuit to the Supreme Court earlier this year under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, arguing that the sale of the site would violate the decades-old federal statute restricting the government’s ability to encroach on religious liberty. The high court in May refused to hear the case. Gorsuch dissented from that decision as well, arguing that the court “should at least have troubled itself to hear [the] case” before “allowing the government to destroy the Apaches’ sacred site.”Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the May ruling as well, though he did not add his dissent to the Oct. 6 denial of the appeal. In a statement, Apache Stronghold said that while the decision was “deeply disappointing, the fight to protect Oak Flat is far from over.” The group vowed to “continue pressing our cases in the lower courts.””Oak Flat deserves the same respect and protection this country has long given to other places of worship,” the group said. The coalition has garnered support from major Catholic backers in its religious liberty bid. Last year the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops joined an amicus brief arguing that lower court decisions allowing the sale of Oak Flat represent “a grave misunderstanding” of religious freedom law. The Knights of Columbus similarly filed a brief in support of the Apaches, arguing that the decision to allow the property to be mined applies an “atextual constraint” to the federal religious freedom law with “no grounding in the statute itself.”Though Apache Stronghold appears to have exhausted its legal options, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said on Aug. 18 that the Oak Flat site would not be transferred to Resolution Copper amid emergency petitions from the San Carlos Apache Tribe as well as the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition. That dispute is still playing out at federal court.

unitedyam

On Oct. 6, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a rehearing of the case filed by Apache Stronghold, a coalition of Native Americans and their supporters, that would have prevented the sale of a Native American sacred site to a mining company. / Credit: Photo courtesy of Becket

CNA Staff, Oct 8, 2025 / 12:00 pm (CNA).

A Native American group working to stop the destruction of a centuries-old religious ritual site has lost a last-ditch appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to halt the transfer and obliteration of the Arizona parcel.

The Supreme Court in an unsigned order on Oct. 6 said Apache Stronghold’s petition for a rehearing had been denied. The court did not give a reason for the denial.

Justice Neil Gorsuch would have granted the request, the order noted. Justice Samuel Alito, meanwhile, “took no part in the consideration or decision” of the order. 

The denial likely deals a death blow to the Apache group’s attempts to halt the destruction of Oak Flat, which has been viewed as a sacred site by Apaches and other Native American groups for hundreds of years and has been used extensively for religious rituals. 

The federal government is selling the land to the multinational Resolution Copper company, which plans to destroy the site as part of a copper mining operation. 

The coalition had brought the lawsuit to the Supreme Court earlier this year under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, arguing that the sale of the site would violate the decades-old federal statute restricting the government’s ability to encroach on religious liberty. 

The high court in May refused to hear the case. Gorsuch dissented from that decision as well, arguing that the court “should at least have troubled itself to hear [the] case” before “allowing the government to destroy the Apaches’ sacred site.”

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the May ruling as well, though he did not add his dissent to the Oct. 6 denial of the appeal. 

In a statement, Apache Stronghold said that while the decision was “deeply disappointing, the fight to protect Oak Flat is far from over.”

The group vowed to “continue pressing our cases in the lower courts.”

“Oak Flat deserves the same respect and protection this country has long given to other places of worship,” the group said.

The coalition has garnered support from major Catholic backers in its religious liberty bid. Last year the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops joined an amicus brief arguing that lower court decisions allowing the sale of Oak Flat represent “a grave misunderstanding” of religious freedom law. 

The Knights of Columbus similarly filed a brief in support of the Apaches, arguing that the decision to allow the property to be mined applies an “atextual constraint” to the federal religious freedom law with “no grounding in the statute itself.”

Though Apache Stronghold appears to have exhausted its legal options, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said on Aug. 18 that the Oak Flat site would not be transferred to Resolution Copper amid emergency petitions from the San Carlos Apache Tribe as well as the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition. That dispute is still playing out at federal court.

Read More