Summary
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of preliminary injunctions seeking to block a federally mandated land exchange involving Oak Flat and the Resolution Copper mining project in Arizona. The court held that the plaintiffs had Article III standing, that the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition had prudential standing to challenge the appraisal, and that the Final Environmental Impact Statement constituted final agency action. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success or serious questions on their appraisal, NEPA, consultation, NHPA, RFRA, or Free Exercise claims; Judge Rawlinson partially dissented regarding the appraisal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiffs had Article III standing to challenge the land exchange and whether their alleged injuries were redressable.
- Whether Arizona Mining Reform Coalition had prudential standing under the APA to challenge the land-exchange appraisal.
- Whether the revised FEIS constituted final agency action reviewable under the APA.
- Whether plaintiffs were likely to succeed on challenges to the appraisal under the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act.
- Whether plaintiffs were likely to succeed on claims that the FEIS violated NEPA by inadequately addressing water impacts, agency comments, mitigation, extra-record evidence, alternative mining methods, or statutory page limits.
- Whether the government satisfied its consultation obligations under the Land Exchange Act and Section 106 of the NHPA.
- Whether the proposed land exchange violated RFRA or the Free Exercise Clause.
- Whether plaintiffs were entitled to preliminary injunctions or injunctions pending appeal.
Holdings
- Plaintiffs established Article III standing because the FEIS showed that physical and visual impacts from mine construction would be immediate, permanent, and large in scale, and a favorable decision could redress their injuries by delaying or preventing the land exchange.
- AMRC had prudential standing under the APA to challenge the Land Exchange Act appraisal.
- The FEIS was final agency action reviewable under the APA.
- AMRC was not likely to succeed on its challenge to the appraisal of the Mining Claim Zone.
- Plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on their NEPA claims concerning cumulative water impacts, agency comments, mitigation, extra-record evidence, alternative mining methods, or FEIS page limits.
- The Tribe and Lopez plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on their consultation claims.
- The Lopez plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on their RFRA or Free Exercise Clause claims because Apache Stronghold foreclosed their challenge to the land transfer.
Key quotations
“Physical and visual impacts on [traditional cultural places], special interest areas, and plant and mineral resources caused by construction of the mine would be immediate, permanent, and large in scale.” (17)
“Because Plaintiffs have failed to show a likelihood of success on, or even serious questions regarding, any of their claims, we need not reach the other injunction factors.” (40)
“Nonetheless recognize that this land transfer will fundamentally alter the nature of the land, including destruction of those sites sacred to the Tribe, the Lopez Plaintiffs, and similarly situated Native individuals.” (40)
Factual background
Congress enacted the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act, directing the Forest Service to transfer approximately 2,500 acres of Tonto National Forest land, including Oak Flat and mineral deposits targeted by Resolution Copper Mining LLC, in exchange for more than 5,000 acres of allegedly equal-value land. Oak Flat is an Apache ceremonial and religious site, and the proposed mining project would cause substantial physical and visual impacts and would involve extensive copper mining, water use, tailings, pipelines, and related infrastructure. The Forest Service issued a revised FEIS in June 2025 and prepared separate appraisals for the Mining Claim Zone, where Resolution held unpatented mining claims, and the Mineral Withdrawal Area, where it did not.
Procedural history
After the Forest Service issued a revised final environmental impact statement and completed appraisal and consultation processes concerning the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange, AMRC and the San Carlos Apache Tribe sought preliminary injunctions in the District of Arizona. The district court denied the injunction requests, concluding that plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success or serious questions on their appraisal, NEPA, consultation, NFMA, or related claims. Lopez plaintiffs filed a separate action in the District of Columbia that was transferred to Arizona; that court also denied a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Ninth Circuit consolidated the appeals.