Living Law,
Living LandSupport land rights

Court case

Oak Flat land-exchange litigation, Ninth Circuit (2026)

On September 29, 2026 the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc in the Oak Flat appeals, with Chief Judge Murguia and others dissenting.

Citation
Ariz. Mining Reform Coal. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 172 F.4th 641 (9th Cir. 2026), reh'g en banc denied (Sept. 29, 2026)
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Cir.
Year
2026
Nations
Inter Tribal Association of Arizona and conservation groups as plaintiffs; Apache sacred site
Treaty at issue
none located
Effect on land rights
eroded

What happened

Three appeals, Nos. 25-5185, 25-5189 and 25-5197, challenged the land exchange that would give Oak Flat and a large copper deposit in the Tonto National Forest to Resolution Copper. The plaintiffs were conservation groups, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, and a separate set of Apache plaintiffs.

A three-judge panel of Judges Rawlinson, Milan Smith and Bress affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction on March 13, 2026, and amended its opinion on April 8. Its summary says the Apache plaintiffs' religious-liberty claim "is foreclosed by precedent," meaning the en banc ruling in Apache Stronghold v. United States (2024). Judge Rawlinson dissented in part, only on the Forest Service appraisal.

On September 29, 2026 the court denied petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. Judges M. Smith and Bress voted to deny. Judge Rawlinson voted to grant rehearing en banc. The order says the matter "failed to receive a majority of the votes of the non-recused active judges."

Chief Judge Murguia dissented, writing that the court had a chance "to fix our tragic error." Judge Graber, joined by nine other judges, wrote separately that Apache Stronghold was wrong. Judge Bumatay, joined by four judges, also dissented from the denial. Murguia wrote that unless the Supreme Court steps in, a mining project will obliterate Oak Flat.

Good to know. Judge Rawlinson dissented from the March panel ruling only in part, on the appraisal issue.

Summarized with AI assistance from 3 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error

What the sources say, and how this was checked

Well supported by the sources below.

  1. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the non-recused active judges in favor of en banc consideration.Arizona Mining Reform Coalition v. U.S. Forest Service, Nos. 25-5185, 25-5189, 25-5197 (9th Cir. Sept. 29, 2026) (order)
  2. our court had a second opportunity to fix our tragic error. We should have taken it.Arizona Mining Reform Coalition v. U.S. Forest Service, Nos. 25-5185, 25-5189, 25-5197 (9th Cir. Sept. 29, 2026) (order)
  3. claim that the land exchange would violate their religious liberty, as protected by RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause, is foreclosed by precedentArizona Mining Reform Coalition v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 25-5189 (9th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026, amended Apr. 8, 2026)

Research notes. Our page summary calls the March panel ruling '2-1'; the opinion shows Judge Rawlinson dissented only in part, on the appraisal issue. The 'eleven judges' figure in our data is not stated in the order: Judge Graber was joined by nine judges and Judge Bumatay by four, and counts overlap. The order is cited in the later opinion as 172 F.4th 641 (9th Cir. 2026) for the panel decision (per Murguia's dissent). The panel's references to 'precedent' are to Apache Stronghold; I did not read all separate statements in full.

Who is doing the work

This history belongs to living nations. Start with them:

Native legal and land defense, nationally

Gifts go straight to each organization; this atlas takes nothing. Listing is not endorsement: how organizations are listed.

Connections

Links marked “suggested” were matched automatically by name or date and have not yet been reviewed by a person.

Doctrine applied 3

Policy era 1

Nations named 1

Sources

  1. kjzz.org/tribal-natural-resources/2026-10-02/11-judges-from-9th-circuit-ask-u-s-supreme-counclassified
The record’s fields
Holding
A panel affirmed denial of a preliminary injunction (Judge Rawlinson dissenting only on the appraisal issue); on Sept. 29, 2026 the court denied rehearing en banc over dissents, with Chief Judge Murguia calling Apache Stronghold a 'tragic error.'
Kind
Court case
Confidence
Low

Correct this record