{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-25-5189-2026-09-29","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-25-5189-2026-09-29)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-17","fingerprint":"ewai:us:e7344b","proof":"sha256:2dca4412a915c35418d512a2dc50c6f79192118be7949c07be32819fcdefb362","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ca9-25-5189-2026-09-29","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91"],"kind":"front_matter"},{"title":"SUMMARY*","paragraphs":["para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299","para_300","para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306","para_307","para_308","para_309","para_310","para_311","para_312","para_313","para_314","para_315","para_316","para_317","para_318","para_319","para_320","para_321","para_322","para_323","para_324","para_325","para_326","para_327","para_328","para_329","para_330","para_331","para_332","para_333","para_334","para_335","para_336","para_337","para_338","para_339","para_340","para_341","para_342","para_343","para_344","para_345","para_346","para_347","para_348","para_349","para_350","para_351","para_352","para_353","para_354","para_355","para_356","para_357","para_358","para_359","para_360","para_361","para_362","para_363","para_364","para_365","para_366","para_367","para_368","para_369","para_370","para_371","para_372","para_373","para_374","para_375","para_376","para_377","para_378","para_379","para_380","para_381","para_382","para_383","para_384","para_385","para_386","para_387","para_388","para_389","para_390","para_391","para_392","para_393","para_394","para_395","para_396","para_397","para_398","para_399","para_400","para_401","para_402","para_403","para_404","para_405","para_406","para_407","para_408","para_409","para_410","para_411","para_412","para_413","para_414","para_415","para_416","para_417","para_418","para_419","para_420","para_421","para_422","para_423","para_424","para_425","para_426","para_427","para_428","para_429","para_430","para_431","para_432","para_433","para_434","para_435","para_436","para_437","para_438","para_439","para_440","para_441","para_442","para_443","para_444","para_445","para_446","para_447","para_448","para_449","para_450","para_451","para_452","para_453","para_454","para_455","para_456","para_457","para_458","para_459","para_460","para_461","para_462","para_463","para_464","para_465","para_466","para_467","para_468","para_469","para_470","para_471","para_472","para_473","para_474","para_475","para_476","para_477","para_478","para_479","para_480","para_481","para_482","para_483","para_484","para_485","para_486","para_487","para_488","para_489","para_490","para_491","para_492","para_493","para_494","para_495","para_496","para_497","para_498","para_499","para_500","para_501","para_502","para_503","para_504","para_505","para_506","para_507","para_508","para_509","para_510","para_511","para_512","para_513","para_514","para_515","para_516","para_517","para_518","para_519","para_520","para_521","para_522","para_523","para_524","para_525","para_526","para_527","para_528","para_529","para_530","para_531","para_532","para_533","para_534","para_535","para_536","para_537","para_538","para_539","para_540","para_541","para_542","para_543","para_544","para_545","para_546","para_547","para_548","para_549","para_550","para_551","para_552","para_553","para_554","para_555","para_556","para_557","para_558","para_559","para_560","para_561","para_562","para_563","para_564","para_565","para_566","para_567","para_568","para_569","para_570","para_571","para_572","para_573","para_574","para_575","para_576","para_577","para_578","para_579","para_580","para_581","para_582","para_583","para_584","para_585","para_586","para_587","para_588","para_589","para_590","para_591","para_592","para_593","para_594","para_595","para_596","para_597","para_598","para_599","para_600","para_601","para_602","para_603","para_604","para_605","para_606","para_607","para_608","para_609","para_610","para_611","para_612","para_613","para_614","para_615","para_616","para_617","para_618","para_619","para_620","para_621","para_622","para_623","para_624","para_625","para_626","para_627","para_628","para_629","para_630","para_631","para_632","para_633","para_634","para_635","para_636","para_637","para_638","para_639","para_640","para_641","para_642","para_643","para_644","para_645","para_646","para_647","para_648","para_649","para_650","para_651","para_652","para_653","para_654","para_655","para_656","para_657","para_658","para_659","para_660","para_661","para_662","para_663","para_664","para_665","para_666","para_667","para_668","para_669","para_670","para_671","para_672","para_673","para_674","para_675","para_676","para_677","para_678","para_679","para_680","para_681","para_682","para_683","para_684","para_685","para_686","para_687","para_688","para_689","para_690","para_691","para_692","para_693","para_694","para_695","para_696","para_697","para_698","para_699","para_700","para_701","para_702","para_703","para_704","para_705","para_706","para_707","para_708","para_709","para_710","para_711","para_712","para_713","para_714","para_715","para_716","para_717","para_718","para_719","para_720","para_721","para_722","para_723","para_724","para_725","para_726","para_727","para_728","para_729","para_730","para_731","para_732","para_733","para_734","para_735","para_736","para_737","para_738","para_739","para_740","para_741","para_742","para_743","para_744","para_745","para_746","para_747","para_748","para_749","para_750","para_751","para_752","para_753","para_754","para_755","para_756","para_757","para_758","para_759","para_760","para_761","para_762","para_763","para_764","para_765","para_766","para_767","para_768","para_769","para_770","para_771","para_772","para_773","para_774","para_775","para_776","para_777","para_778","para_779","para_780","para_781","para_782","para_783","para_784","para_785","para_786","para_787","para_788","para_789","para_790","para_791","para_792","para_793","para_794","para_795","para_796","para_797","para_798","para_799","para_800","para_801","para_802","para_803","para_804","para_805","para_806","para_807","para_808","para_809","para_810","para_811","para_812","para_813","para_814","para_815","para_816","para_817","para_818","para_819","para_820","para_821","para_822","para_823","para_824","para_825","para_826","para_827","para_828","para_829","para_830","para_831","para_832","para_833","para_834","para_835","para_836","para_837","para_838","para_839","para_840","para_841","para_842","para_843","para_844","para_845","para_846","para_847","para_848","para_849","para_850","para_851","para_852","para_853","para_854","para_855","para_856","para_857","para_858","para_859","para_860","para_861","para_862","para_863","para_864","para_865","para_866","para_867","para_868","para_869","para_870","para_871","para_872","para_873","para_874","para_875","para_876","para_877","para_878","para_879","para_880","para_881","para_882","para_883","para_884","para_885"],"kind":"summary"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"FOR PUBLICATION","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"ARIZONA MINING REFORM","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"COALITION; INTER TRIBAL","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"ASSOCIATION OF ARIZONA,","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"INC.; EARTHWORKS; CENTER","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY;","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"ACCESS FUND; GRAND","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"CANYON CHAPTER OF THE","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"SIERRA CLUB,","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Plaintiffs - Appellants,","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"UNITED STATES FOREST","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"SERVICE, an agency in the U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"Department of Agriculture; NEIL","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"BOSWORTH, Supervisor of the","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"Tonto National Forest; BROOKE","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"ROLLINS, US Secretary of","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"Agriculture,","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"Defendants - Appellees,","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"RESOLUTION COPPER MINING,","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"LLC,","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"No. 25-5185","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"D.C. No.","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"2:21-cv-00122-","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"DWL","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"District of","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"Arizona,","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"Phoenix","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"ORDER","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"2 AZ MINING REFORM COAL. V. U.S. FOREST SERV.","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"Intervenor-Defendant -","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"Appellee.","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE, a","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"federally recognized Tribe,","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"Plaintiff - Appellant,","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"UNITED STATES FOREST","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"SERVICE, an agency in the U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"Department of Agriculture; NEIL","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"BOSWORTH, Supervisor of the","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"Tonto National Forest; BROOKE","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"ROLLINS,","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"Defendants - Appellees,","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"RESOLUTION COPPER MINING,","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"LLC,","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"Intervenor-Defendant -","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"Appellee.","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"No. 25-5189","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"D.C. No.","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"2:21-cv-00068-","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"DWL","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"District of","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"Arizona,","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"Phoenix","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"GOUYEN BROWN LOPEZ;","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"SINETTA LOPEZ, on behalf of","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"herself and her minor child L.B.;","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"NOMIE BROWN; ANGELA","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"KINSEY, on behalf of herself and her","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"minor children V.K. and M.K.,","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"No. 25-5197","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"D.C. No.","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"2:25-cv-02758-","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"DWL","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"District of","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"AZ MINING REFORM COAL. V. U.S. FOREST SERV. 3","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"Plaintiffs - Appellants,","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"UNITED STATES FOREST","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"SERVICE; BROOKE ROLLINS;","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"OF AGRICULTURE; TOM","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"SCHULTZ,","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"Defendants - Appellees,","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"RESOLUTION COPPER MINING,","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"LLC,","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"Intervenor-Defendant -","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"Appellee.","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"Arizona,","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"Phoenix","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"Filed September 29, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"Before: Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Milan D. Smith, Jr., and","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"Daniel A. Bress, Circuit Judges.","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"Order;","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"Dissent by Chief Judge Murguia;","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"Statement by Judge Graber;","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"Dissent by Judge Bumatay","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"4 AZ MINING REFORM COAL. V. U.S. FOREST SERV.","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"SUMMARY*","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"Act","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"The panel denied petitions for panel rehearing and/or","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"rehearing en banc in a case in which the panel affirmed the","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"injunction seeking to block a land exchange, mandated by","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"Act, that targets a large copper deposit in Southeast Arizona","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"located in the Tonto National Forest.","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"Dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, Chief","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"Judge Murguia wrote that, unconstrained by this court’s","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"prior precedent narrowly and incorrectly interpreting","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"“substantial burden,” the complete obliteration of Oak Flat,","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"a site sacred to the Western Apache, is obviously a","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"“substantial burden” on the Western Apache’s religious","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"exercise. The three-judge panel in this case denied relief,","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"bound by prior precedent. This case presented an","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"exceptional circumstance that would justify revisiting this","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"court’s prior precedent in Apache Stronghold v. United","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"States, 101 F.4th 1036 (9th Cir. 2024) (en banc).","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"Respecting the denial of rehearing en banc, Judge","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"Graber, joined by Chief Judge Murguia and Judges","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"McKeown, W. Fletcher, Paez, Berzon, Hurwitz, Wardlaw,","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"Christen, and Koh, wrote that the en banc court in Apache","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"Stronghold was wrong when it allowed the proposed mining","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"project at issue here, which will substantially burden the","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"AZ MINING REFORM COAL. V. U.S. FOREST SERV. 5","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"Western Apache’s exercise of religion. First, the holding","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"indisputably contradicted the plain meaning of the statutory","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"text. Second, the holding grossly misapplied the doctrine","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"described in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. U.S. 362 (2000).","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"Third, even if applying the doctrine in Williams were","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"appropriate, the analysis was badly bungled.","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"Judge Bumatay, joined by Chief Judge Murguia and","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"Judges Wardlaw, Christen, and Koh, dissented from the","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"denial of rehearing en banc because even if 1993 RFRA","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"incorporated pre-Smith limitations on “substantial burden,”","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"those limitations no longer dictate what acts “substantially","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"burden a person’s exercise of religion” after Congress’s","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"2000 RFRA amendment. The amendment untethered RFRA","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"from the Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"and expressly included assaults on religious exercise based","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"on the use of real property. Given the change in statutory","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"text, Apache Stronghold was wrongly decided.","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"ORDER","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"Judges M. SMITH and BRESS voted to deny the","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"Plaintiffs-Appellants’ petitions for panel rehearing and/or","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"rehearing en banc. Judge RAWLINSON voted to grant the","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"Plaintiffs-Appellants’ petitions for rehearing en banc. The","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"full court was advised of the petitions for rehearing en banc.","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"the non-recused active judges in favor of en banc","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"consideration. See Fed. R. App. P. 40. The petitions for","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"panel rehearing and/or rehearing en banc are DENIED.","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"Judges GOULD, MILLER, FORREST, and JOHNSTONE","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"6 AZ MINING REFORM COAL. V. U.S. FOREST SERV.","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"case. The motions for leave to file amicus briefs (Dkt. Nos.","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"234, 235, 237, 241, 244) are GRANTED.","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"MURGUIA, Chief Judge, dissenting from the denial of","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"rehearing en banc.","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"Four years ago, a three-judge panel of our court—of","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"which I was a member—was first asked whether the","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"destruction of Chí’chil Biłdagoteel, or Oak Flat, a site sacred","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"to the Western Apaches for millennia, would “substantially","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"burden” the Apaches’ exercise of religion under the","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"§§ 2000bb to bb-4. See Apache Stronghold v. United States,","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"38 F.4th 742 (9th Cir. 2022), reh’g en banc granted, opinion","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"vacated, 56 F.4th 636 (9th Cir. 2022), and on reh’g en banc,","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"95 F.4th 608 (9th Cir. 2024), amended and superseded by,","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"101 F.4th 1036 (9th Cir. 2024). Constrained by our prior","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"precedent narrowly and incorrectly interpreting “substantial","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"burden,” Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Service, 535 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"1058 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), we held that it would not.","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"Apache Stronghold, 38 F.4th at 766. At the time, as Judge","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"Graber’s statement explains, the practical consequences of","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"our decision were not certain. See id. at 773 (acknowledging","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"legislative efforts to block the land transfer).","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"Two years later, on rehearing en banc, our court was","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"presented with the same question. Unconstrained by Navajo","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"Nation, the answer should have been clear: the complete","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"obliteration of Oak Flat is obviously a “substantial burden”","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"on the Apaches’ religious exercise. See Apache Stronghold,","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"101 F.4th at 1128–58 (Murguia, C.J., joined by Gould,","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"AZ MINING REFORM COAL. V. U.S. FOREST SERV. 7","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"Berzon, Lee, and Mendoza, JJ., dissenting); see id. at 1158","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"(Lee, J., dissenting); see also Apache Stronghold v. United","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"States, No. 21-15295, 2021 WL 12295173 (9th Cir. Mar. 5,","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"2021), at *2 (Bumatay, J., dissenting).","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"We overruled Navajo Nation’s definition of “substantial","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"burden” under RFRA. Apache Stronghold v. United States,","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"101 F.4th at 1043 (per curiam). But in its place, instead of","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"clarifying our law, we created confusion with seven separate","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"opinions. See id. at 1154–55 (Murguia, C.J., dissenting).","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"One six-judge majority held that “preventing access to","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"religious exercise is an example of substantial burden.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"at 1043 (per curiam). A different six-judge majority,","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"through a tortured set of analytical moves, made an","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"exception to that rule: “a disposition of government real","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"property” generally “does not impose a substantial burden","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"on religious exercise.” Id. at 1044 (per curiam), 1055","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"(majority opinion by Collins, J.); see also Apache","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"Stronghold v. United States, 145 S. Ct. 1480, 1485 (2025)","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"(Gorsuch, J., joined by Thomas, J., dissenting from the","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"denial of certiorari) (“How the en banc court arrived at its","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"conclusion is a story of its own.”).","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"For the reasons Judge Graber and Judge Bumatay lay","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"out, and the reasons I stated in my dissent, we were wrong.","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"See Apache Stronghold, 101 F.4th at 1128–58 (Murguia,","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"C.J., dissenting). As in 2022, though, the consequences were","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"not yet certain. See Apache Stronghold, 101 F.4th at 1049","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"(explaining that the government withdrew its environmental","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"impact statement in March 2021 with a promise to evaluate","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"the Tribes’ concerns); id. at 1132 n.5 (Murguia, C.J.,","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"dissenting) (describing other then-pending legal challenges","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"to the transfer).","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"8 AZ MINING REFORM COAL. V. U.S. FOREST SERV.","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"In 2025, the government issued a new environmental","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"impact statement, restarting the Land Exchange Act’s 60-","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"day clock for conveyance of the land. New plaintiffs filed","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"this action. The panel in this case once again denied relief,","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"bound by our en banc court’s unprecedented exception to the","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"definition of “substantial burden” in Apache Stronghold.","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"Ariz. Mining Reform Coal. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 172 F.4th","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"641, 665 (9th Cir. 2026). Presented with a petition for","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"rehearing en banc, our court had a second opportunity to fix","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"our tragic error. We should have taken it.","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"This was our final chance. The uncertainties and","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"contingencies that were present in 2022 and 2024 no longer","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"exist. This case presented a truly exceptional circumstance","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"that would have justified revisiting our prior precedent.","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"Unless the Supreme Court steps in, a mining project will","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"obliterate Oak Flat and destroy “the very foundation of the","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"Apache religion.” Apache Stronghold, 101 F.4th at 1157","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"(Murguia, C.J., dissenting). I respectfully but strongly","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc.","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"GRABER, Senior Circuit Judge, joined by MURGUIA,","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"Chief Judge; McKEOWN, W. FLETCHER, PAEZ,","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"BERZON, and HURWITZ, Senior Circuit Judges; and","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"WARDLAW, CHRISTEN, and KOH, Circuit Judges,","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"respecting the denial of rehearing en banc:","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"Indispensable to the Western Apache’s religion is a place","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"called Chí’chil Biłdagoteel, or Oak Flat, where they have","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"worshipped and practiced their religion for at least a","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"millennium. The proposed mining project at issue here—","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"which will convert the sacred site into a crater approximately","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"2 miles across and 1,000 feet deep—plainly will","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"AZ MINING REFORM COAL. V. U.S. FOREST SERV. 9","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"“substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.” 42","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"U.S.C. § 2000bb-1. In Apache Stronghold v. United States,","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"101 F.4th 1036 (9th Cir. 2024) (en banc) (per curiam), a bare","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"majority of the en banc court held to the contrary.","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"We were wrong. See Apache Stronghold v. United","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"States, 145 S. Ct. 1480 (2025) (Gorsuch, J., joined by","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"Thomas, J., dissenting from the denial of certiorari); Apache","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"Stronghold, 101 F.4th at 1128 (Murguia, C.J., dissenting,","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"joined by Judges Gould, Berzon, Lee, and Mendoza); see","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"also id. at 1158 (Lee, J., dissenting) (“Simply put, the","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"complete obliteration of the land—which the Western","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"Apache consider sacred and where they have worshipped","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"and conducted ceremonies for at least a millennium—","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"obviously imposes a substantial burden on the Apache’s","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"religious exercise.”); Apache Stronghold v. United States,","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"No. 21-15295, 2021 WL 12295173, at *3 (9th Cir. Mar. 5,","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"2021) (unpublished) (Bumatay, J., dissenting) (“[T]his is not","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"a difficult case.”). Our decision was triply flawed:","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":" Our interpretation in Apache Stronghold indisputably","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"contradicts the plain meaning of the statutory text. The","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"complete destruction of the sacred site here clearly qualifies","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"as a “substantial[] burden” on the exercise of religion, under","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"any dictionary or ordinary meaning of the phrase. See","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"Apache Stronghold, 145 S. Ct. at 1486 (Gorsuch, J.,","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"dissenting from the denial of certiorari). Because the","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"meaning of the text is clear, our analysis should have ended","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"there. See, e.g., Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs. v. Dep’t of Def., 583","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"U.S. 109, 127 (2018).","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":" Even if applying other tools of statutory interpretation","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"were permissible, we grossly misapplied the doctrine","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"described in Williams v. Taylor (Terry Williams), 529 U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"362 (2000). Incredibly, the Terry Williams doctrine was our","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"10 AZ MINING REFORM COAL. V. U.S. FOREST SERV.","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"sole justification for carving out an exception to the plain","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"meaning of the statutory text. Apache Stronghold, 101 F.4th","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"at 1058–61 (majority opinion by Collins, J.). But the","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"Supreme Court has used that doctrine for one purpose only:","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"to “confirm what [the statutory] language already makes","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"clear.” Terry Williams, 529 U.S. at 412. We erred by","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"applying the Terry Williams doctrine in an unprecedented","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"and impermissibly expansive manner: not to confirm a","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"statute’s plain meaning but to contradict its plain meaning.","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"See Apache Stronghold, 101 F.4th at 1152–54 (Murguia,","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"C.J., dissenting).","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":" Even if applying the Terry Williams doctrine in this","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"fashion were appropriate, we badly bungled the analysis.","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"We used the doctrine to import the meaning of “substantially","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"burden” that the Supreme Court purportedly adopted in Lyng","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n, 485 U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"439 (1988). Apache Stronghold, 101 F.4th at 1060–61","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"(majority opinion by Collins, J.). But Lyng pre-dated the","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"enactment of the statute; applied only to challenges under the","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"Free Exercise Clause; never used the term “substantially","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"burden”; has plainly distinguishable facts; and expressly","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"stated that “a law prohibiting the Indian respondents from","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"visiting [a sacred] area would raise a different set of","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"constitutional questions.” Lyng, 485 U.S. at 453 (emphasis","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"added). Whatever teachings Lyng offers, reliance on Lyng","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"here—to contradict and constrict the plain meaning of a","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"statute that was intentionally worded broadly to reach","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"beyond the extent of the Free Exercise Clause—is wholly","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"unjustified. See Apache Stronghold, 145 S. Ct. at 1487","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"(Gorsuch, J., dissenting from the denial of certiorari);","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"Apache Stronghold, 101 F.4th at 1146–52 (Murguia, C.J.,","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"dissenting).","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"AZ MINING REFORM COAL. V. U.S. FOREST SERV. 11","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"This case is “vitally important.” Apache Stronghold, 145","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"S. Ct. at 1480 (Gorsuch, J., dissenting from the denial of","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"certiorari). If allowed to proceed, the mining project “will","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"effectively ‘end Apache religious existence as we know it.’”","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"Id. at 1488 (quoting the petition for certiorari). The","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"Apache’s religious practices, like those of many other Native","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"Americans, require access to particular sacred land. So the","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"complete destruction of the Apache’s sacred space is the","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"rough equivalent of forever banning communion, for","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"Catholics; or forbidding the study of the Torah, for Jews; or","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"criminalizing all prayer, for Protestants; or outlawing fasting","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"during Ramadan, for Muslims. No one would question that","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"those hypothetical laws would impose a substantial burden","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"on religious exercise, and there equally should be no","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"question here. The constitutional and statutory protections","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"for religious freedom apply to all religions; the laws do not","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"favor some religions and disfavor others.","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"When we decided Apache Stronghold, the government","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"had withdrawn the environmental impact statement and","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"pledged to issue a new one after gaining a better","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"understanding of the concerns of affected Tribes. Apache","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"Stronghold, 101 F.4th at 1049 (majority opinion by Collins,","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"J.). Other legal challenges to the project were pending. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"at 1132 n.5 (Murguia, C.J., dissenting). The scope and","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"legality of the project thus were uncertain at that time:","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"Congress could have prevented the land transfer; the precise","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"scope or methodology of the mining project could have been","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"altered; or other court decisions could have stopped the","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"project. And even if the proposal ultimately remained","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"identical (which it did), everyone knew that this second","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"round of litigation was inevitable.","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"Those uncertainties and contingencies no longer exist.","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"Unless the judiciary acts now, the project will go forward.","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"12 AZ MINING REFORM COAL. V. U.S. FOREST SERV.","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"This is the last chance to prevent the irreversible desecration","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"of a place, of a religion, and of a people.","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"BUMATAY, Circuit Judge, joined by MURGUIA, Chief","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"Judge, and WARDLAW, CHRISTEN, and KOH, Circuit","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"Judges, dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc:","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"Would turning a holy site into a giant crater","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"“substantially burden” the exercise of religion? “To ask the","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"question is to answer it.” In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 581","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"(1895). Yet for the second time, a panel of this court says","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"no.","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"It’s not the panel’s fault. Its hands were bound by our","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"badly fractured decision in Apache Stronghold v. United","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"States, 101 F.4th 1036 (9th Cir. 2024) (en banc). There, an","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"en banc majority said that the Religious Freedom","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”) categorically doesn’t","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"apply to the “disposition of government real property”","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"absent some minor exceptions. Id. at 1044 (per curiam).","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"Thus, the utter destruction of Oak Flat—land used by the","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"Western Apache to commune with their Creator—isn’t","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"subject to RFRA’s protection simply because it’s federal","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"land. But even if RFRA could be read as carving out the","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"government’s property when it was enacted in 1993, that","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"interpretation simply cannot survive Congress’s 2000 update","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"to RFRA. Congress has now expressly decoupled RFRA","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"from the Supreme Court’s Free Exercise caselaw and added","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"protection for the religious use of “real property.” Thus, the","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"land transfer of Oak Flat must meet RFRA’s demanding","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"requirements.","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"AZ MINING REFORM COAL. V. U.S. FOREST SERV. 13","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"* * *","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"The importance of Oak Flat to the Western Apache","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"cannot be overstated:","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"For hundreds of years, they have worshipped","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"at a location in Arizona’s Tonto National","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"Forest believed to be the most sacred of","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"grounds—Oak Flat. According to their","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"religious tradition, Oak Flat serves as the","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"dwelling place of the Creator’s messengers to","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"the earth and generates a direct connection","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"between the Creator’s spirit and the Western","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"Apache peoples. Given the deep bond","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"between the Creator and the natural resources","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"of the land, the Western Apaches regard Oak","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"Flat as the holiest land—the perennial home","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"of their sacred religious ceremonies and a","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"historic place of worship. For them, the","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"grounds, plants, and waters of Oak Flat are","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"imbued with unique spiritual significance. It","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"is no overestimation to say that Oak Flat is","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"the spiritual lifeblood of the Western Apache","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"peoples, connecting them to the Creator since","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"before the founding of the Nation.","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"Apache Stronghold v. United States, 2021 WL 12295173, at","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"*1 (9th Cir. 2021) (Bumatay, J., dissenting).","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"Oak Flat is also federal land—and it sits atop a huge","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"deposit of copper. Apache Stronghold v. United States, 145","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"S. Ct. 1480, 1482 (2025) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting from denial","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"of certiorari). A mining company spent twenty years seeking","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"permission to dig up the site; it finally succeeded by","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"convincing Congress to “attach a last-minute rider” to a","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"14 AZ MINING REFORM COAL. V. U.S. FOREST SERV.","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"“must-pass” defense-appropriations bill. Id. at 1483","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"(simplified). Under the resulting law, the Department of","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"Agriculture found that “the planned destruction of Oak Flat","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"would cause indescribable hardship to tribal members,” but","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"insisted that any alternative would “substantially reduce the","paragraph_id":"para_410"},{"text":"amount of ore that could be profitably mined.” Id. at 1483–","paragraph_id":"para_411"},{"text":"84 (simplified).","paragraph_id":"para_412"},{"text":"Apache Stronghold, a nonprofit group, sued to stop the","paragraph_id":"para_413"},{"text":"destruction of the Western Apaches’ high place. It argued","paragraph_id":"para_414"},{"text":"that RFRA, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (codified as","paragraph_id":"para_415"},{"text":"amended at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.), barred the","paragraph_id":"para_416"},{"text":"government from handing over the land to the mining","paragraph_id":"para_417"},{"text":"company. A divided panel of this court rejected that","paragraph_id":"para_418"},{"text":"challenge, after which we took the case en banc. See Apache","paragraph_id":"para_419"},{"text":"Stronghold, 101 F.4th at 1043–44 (per curiam). We","paragraph_id":"para_420"},{"text":"produced a kaleidoscope of a decision—two en banc","paragraph_id":"para_421"},{"text":"majorities, three concurrences, and two dissents.","paragraph_id":"para_422"},{"text":"The first majority rightly held that RFRA—which bars","paragraph_id":"para_423"},{"text":"government from “substantially burden[ing] a person’s","paragraph_id":"para_424"},{"text":"exercise of religion” if the burden can’t survive strict","paragraph_id":"para_425"},{"text":"scrutiny, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b)—carries a broader","paragraph_id":"para_426"},{"text":"definition of “substantially burden” than our precedent had","paragraph_id":"para_427"},{"text":"said. RFRA doesn’t define “substantially burden,” but the","paragraph_id":"para_428"},{"text":"Ninth Circuit adopted an artificially narrow definition of the","paragraph_id":"para_429"},{"text":"term. See Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Serv., 535 F.3d 1058","paragraph_id":"para_430"},{"text":"(9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). In Navajo Nation, we surmised","paragraph_id":"para_431"},{"text":"that “a substantial burden is imposed only when individuals","paragraph_id":"para_432"},{"text":"are forced to choose between following the tenets of their","paragraph_id":"para_433"},{"text":"religion and receiving a governmental benefit . . . or coerced","paragraph_id":"para_434"},{"text":"to act contrary to their religious beliefs by the threat of civil","paragraph_id":"para_435"},{"text":"or criminal sanctions.” Id. at 1069–70 (simplified). The first","paragraph_id":"para_436"},{"text":"en banc majority correctly overruled this part of Navajo","paragraph_id":"para_437"},{"text":"Nation. Apache Stronghold, 101 F.4th at 1043 (per curiam).","paragraph_id":"para_438"},{"text":"AZ MINING REFORM COAL. V. U.S. FOREST SERV. 15","paragraph_id":"para_439"},{"text":"If we had stopped there, Apache Stronghold would have","paragraph_id":"para_440"},{"text":"been great news for religious freedom. But we didn’t.","paragraph_id":"para_441"},{"text":"Instead, a different en banc majority cabined our ruling","paragraph_id":"para_442"},{"text":"and ensured that it rang hollow for the Western Apache.","paragraph_id":"para_443"},{"text":"This second majority immediately limited the meaning of","paragraph_id":"para_444"},{"text":"“substantially burden” by drawing on a pre-RFRA case,","paragraph_id":"para_445"},{"text":"Lyng. Apache Stronghold, 101 F.4th at 1043–44 (per","paragraph_id":"para_446"},{"text":"curiam) (citing Lyng v. Nw. Indian Cemetery Protective","paragraph_id":"para_447"},{"text":"Ass’n, 485 U.S. 439 (1988)). In Lyng, the Supreme Court","paragraph_id":"para_448"},{"text":"crafted a 640-million-acre carveout from the Free Exercise","paragraph_id":"para_449"},{"text":"Clause: when “[t]he Government’s rights to use of its own","paragraph_id":"para_450"},{"text":"land” are implicated, the Free Exercise Clause largely bows","paragraph_id":"para_451"},{"text":"to the government’s whims. Lyng, 485 U.S. at 454. Apache","paragraph_id":"para_452"},{"text":"Stronghold’s second majority asserted that RFRA","paragraph_id":"para_453"},{"text":"“subsumes, rather than overrides,” Lyng’s holding when it","paragraph_id":"para_454"},{"text":"comes to what counts as a “substantial burden” on religious","paragraph_id":"para_455"},{"text":"exercise. Apache Stronghold, 101 F.4th at 1043–44 (per","paragraph_id":"para_456"},{"text":"curiam). And this majority claimed that the “disposition of","paragraph_id":"para_457"},{"text":"government real property does not impose a substantial","paragraph_id":"para_458"},{"text":"burden on religious exercise” unless it coerces religious","paragraph_id":"para_459"},{"text":"belief, discriminates against religious belief, penalizes","paragraph_id":"para_460"},{"text":"religious belief, or denies the religious rights, benefits, and","paragraph_id":"para_461"},{"text":"privileges enjoyed by others. Id. In this majority’s telling,","paragraph_id":"para_462"},{"text":"so long as the government isn’t outright discriminating","paragraph_id":"para_463"},{"text":"against or coercing worshippers, even the most egregious","paragraph_id":"para_464"},{"text":"burdens on religious practice simply don’t count when they","paragraph_id":"para_465"},{"text":"involve government land.","paragraph_id":"para_466"},{"text":"That’s the law of the circuit. But, in my view, if this","paragraph_id":"para_467"},{"text":"implied Lyng carveout “were ever possible, it is not so now.”","paragraph_id":"para_468"},{"text":"Indus. Accident Comm’n v. Payne, 259 U.S. 182, 188 (1922).","paragraph_id":"para_469"},{"text":"That’s because Congress amended—and expanded—RFRA","paragraph_id":"para_470"},{"text":"in 2000, adding the “use . . . of real property for the purpose","paragraph_id":"para_471"},{"text":"of religious exercise” to RFRA’s exercise-of-religion","paragraph_id":"para_472"},{"text":"16 AZ MINING REFORM COAL. V. U.S. FOREST SERV.","paragraph_id":"para_473"},{"text":"guarantee. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb-2(4), 2000cc-5(7)(b).","paragraph_id":"para_474"},{"text":"Whatever technical or contextual meaning the en banc","paragraph_id":"para_475"},{"text":"majority might have found to limit “substantial burdens” on","paragraph_id":"para_476"},{"text":"free exercise, that interpretation cannot survive Congress’s","paragraph_id":"para_477"},{"text":"later amendment to the statute. Today, any substantial","paragraph_id":"para_478"},{"text":"burdens on the exercise of religion—including burdens","paragraph_id":"para_479"},{"text":"based on the use of government-owned real property—","paragraph_id":"para_480"},{"text":"trigger strict scrutiny.","paragraph_id":"para_481"},{"text":"Because the Western Apache deserve the protection of","paragraph_id":"para_482"},{"text":"RFRA, I respectfully dissent from the denial of rehearing en","paragraph_id":"para_483"},{"text":"banc.","paragraph_id":"para_484"},{"text":"I.","paragraph_id":"para_485"},{"text":"Perhaps the Apache Stronghold en banc majority made","paragraph_id":"para_486"},{"text":"plausible arguments that RFRA’s use of “substantially","paragraph_id":"para_487"},{"text":"burden” had a contextual meaning—at least when RFRA","paragraph_id":"para_488"},{"text":"was enacted. After all, it is true that “Congress may . . .","paragraph_id":"para_489"},{"text":"define a word or phrase in a specialized way.” Feliciano v.","paragraph_id":"para_490"},{"text":"Dep’t of Transp., 605 U.S. 38, 45 (2025). Under this view,","paragraph_id":"para_491"},{"text":"Congress could’ve meant RFRA to “subsume[]” Lyng.","paragraph_id":"para_492"},{"text":"Apache Stronghold, 101 F.4th at 1043–44 (per curiam). But","paragraph_id":"para_493"},{"text":"the en banc majority’s error was stopping with the 1993","paragraph_id":"para_494"},{"text":"RFRA. The RFRA of 1993 is not the RFRA of today. The","paragraph_id":"para_495"},{"text":"2000 amendment further untethered RFRA from the","paragraph_id":"para_496"},{"text":"Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence and","paragraph_id":"para_497"},{"text":"expressly included assaults on religious exercise based on","paragraph_id":"para_498"},{"text":"the use of real property. Given all this, RFRA cannot be said","paragraph_id":"para_499"},{"text":"to “subsume” Lyng today. A substantial burden on the","paragraph_id":"para_500"},{"text":"exercise of religion on federal lands is just that—a","paragraph_id":"para_501"},{"text":"substantial burden.","paragraph_id":"para_502"},{"text":"A.","paragraph_id":"para_503"},{"text":"Start with some background.","paragraph_id":"para_504"},{"text":"AZ MINING REFORM COAL. V. U.S. FOREST SERV. 17","paragraph_id":"para_505"},{"text":"As RFRA itself tells us, Congress passed the law to","paragraph_id":"para_506"},{"text":"champion the free exercise of religion after the Supreme","paragraph_id":"para_507"},{"text":"Court’s controversial decision in Employment Division v.","paragraph_id":"para_508"},{"text":"Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), which “virtually eliminated the","paragraph_id":"para_509"},{"text":"requirement that the government justify burdens on religious","paragraph_id":"para_510"},{"text":"exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion.” 42","paragraph_id":"para_511"},{"text":"U.S.C. § 2000bb(a)(4); see also Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch.","paragraph_id":"para_512"},{"text":"Dist., 597 U.S. 507, 525 n.1 (2022) (noting that Smith has","paragraph_id":"para_513"},{"text":"earned “some criticism”); Apache Stronghold, 101 F.4th at","paragraph_id":"para_514"},{"text":"1110 (VanDyke, J., concurring) (calling Smith “one of the","paragraph_id":"para_515"},{"text":"most criticized Supreme Court decisions in history”).","paragraph_id":"para_516"},{"text":"How does RFRA work? It “restore[d] the compelling","paragraph_id":"para_517"},{"text":"interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398","paragraph_id":"para_518"},{"text":"(1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).” 42","paragraph_id":"para_519"},{"text":"U.S.C. § 2000bb(b)(1). Its guarantee is clear: “Government","paragraph_id":"para_520"},{"text":"shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion","paragraph_id":"para_521"},{"text":"even if the burden results from a rule of general","paragraph_id":"para_522"},{"text":"applicability,” id. § 2000bb-1(a), unless the government can","paragraph_id":"para_523"},{"text":"prove that “application of the burden to the person—(1) is in","paragraph_id":"para_524"},{"text":"furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is","paragraph_id":"para_525"},{"text":"the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling","paragraph_id":"para_526"},{"text":"governmental interest,” id. § 2000bb-1(b). As originally","paragraph_id":"para_527"},{"text":"enacted, RFRA defined “exercise of religion” as the","paragraph_id":"para_528"},{"text":"“exercise of religion under the First Amendment to the","paragraph_id":"para_529"},{"text":"Constitution.” See Pub. L. No. 103-141, § 5, 107 Stat. 1488.","paragraph_id":"para_530"},{"text":"But there was a hiccup. Congress gave RFRA a","paragraph_id":"para_531"},{"text":"sweeping scope: it extended to state and federal government","paragraph_id":"para_532"},{"text":"alike. When a Texas church challenged a local zoning","paragraph_id":"para_533"},{"text":"decision, the Supreme Court determined that RFRA’s","paragraph_id":"para_534"},{"text":"application to the States exceeded Congress’s powers under","paragraph_id":"para_535"},{"text":"Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. City of Boerne v.","paragraph_id":"para_536"},{"text":"Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 536 (1997).","paragraph_id":"para_537"},{"text":"18 AZ MINING REFORM COAL. V. U.S. FOREST SERV.","paragraph_id":"para_538"},{"text":"To patch the City of Boerne-sized hole in free-exercise","paragraph_id":"para_539"},{"text":"law, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and","paragraph_id":"para_540"},{"text":"Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), Pub. L.","paragraph_id":"para_541"},{"text":"No. 106-274, 114 Stat. 803 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc","paragraph_id":"para_542"},{"text":"et seq.). RLUIPA was enacted under Congress’s Commerce","paragraph_id":"para_543"},{"text":"and Spending Clause powers, which means it applies to “a","paragraph_id":"para_544"},{"text":"more limited category of governmental actions.” Burwell v.","paragraph_id":"para_545"},{"text":"Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682, 695 (2014). It","paragraph_id":"para_546"},{"text":"prohibits state and local government from substantially","paragraph_id":"para_547"},{"text":"burdening religious exercise through land-use regulations, as","paragraph_id":"para_548"},{"text":"well as substantially burdening worship behind bars. 42","paragraph_id":"para_549"},{"text":"U.S.C. §§ 2000cc, 2000cc-1.","paragraph_id":"para_550"},{"text":"With RLUIPA, Congress made several amendments to","paragraph_id":"para_551"},{"text":"RFRA. First was the City of Boerne fix. Congress originally","paragraph_id":"para_552"},{"text":"defined “government” as agencies and officials of “the","paragraph_id":"para_553"},{"text":"United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State.” See Pub.","paragraph_id":"para_554"},{"text":"L. No. 103-141, § 5, 107 Stat 1488. When Congress pushed","paragraph_id":"para_555"},{"text":"RFRA’s RLUIPA update, it limited “government” only to","paragraph_id":"para_556"},{"text":"“the United States, or . . . a covered entity” and excluded","paragraph_id":"para_557"},{"text":"States from its definition. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-2(1)–(2).","paragraph_id":"para_558"},{"text":"Thus, Congress corrected RFRA’s City of Boerne problem","paragraph_id":"para_559"},{"text":"by editing out the States.","paragraph_id":"para_560"},{"text":"B.","paragraph_id":"para_561"},{"text":"But Congress did more than just respond to City of","paragraph_id":"para_562"},{"text":"Boerne when it amended RFRA in 2000. Congress also","paragraph_id":"para_563"},{"text":"replaced RFRA’s definition of “exercise of religion.” While","paragraph_id":"para_564"},{"text":"RFRA’s original definition was based on “the First","paragraph_id":"para_565"},{"text":"Amendment,” Congress unlinked the two and gave “exercise","paragraph_id":"para_566"},{"text":"of religion” a broader definition straight from RLUIPA.","paragraph_id":"para_567"},{"text":"AZ MINING REFORM COAL. V. U.S. FOREST SERV. 19","paragraph_id":"para_568"},{"text":"That’s critical here: it means any Lyng carveout from RFRA","paragraph_id":"para_569"},{"text":"no longer survives. After all,","paragraph_id":"para_570"},{"text":"A statute which is amended is thereafter, and","paragraph_id":"para_571"},{"text":"as to all acts subsequently done, to be","paragraph_id":"para_572"},{"text":"construed as if the amendment had always","paragraph_id":"para_573"},{"text":"been there, and the amendment itself so","paragraph_id":"para_574"},{"text":"thoroughly becomes a part of the original","paragraph_id":"para_575"},{"text":"statute that it must be construed in view of the","paragraph_id":"para_576"},{"text":"original statute as it stands after the","paragraph_id":"para_577"},{"text":"amendments are introduced and the matters","paragraph_id":"para_578"},{"text":"superseded by the amendments eliminated.","paragraph_id":"para_579"},{"text":"Blair v. City of Chicago, 201 U.S. 400, 475 (1906)","paragraph_id":"para_580"},{"text":"(simplified).","paragraph_id":"para_581"},{"text":"In 1993, Congress had originally defined “exercise of","paragraph_id":"para_582"},{"text":"religion” as “the exercise of religion under the First","paragraph_id":"para_583"},{"text":"Amendment to the Constitution.” Pub. L. No. 103-141, § 5,","paragraph_id":"para_584"},{"text":"107 Stat 1488. But in 2000, Congress expanded the","paragraph_id":"para_585"},{"text":"definition of “exercise of religion” to “religious exercise, as","paragraph_id":"para_586"},{"text":"defined in section 2000cc-5”—thus incorporating part of","paragraph_id":"para_587"},{"text":"RLUIPA. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-2(4). That change is","paragraph_id":"para_588"},{"text":"significant. “When a statute includes an explicit definition","paragraph_id":"para_589"},{"text":"of a term, we must follow that definition, even if it varies","paragraph_id":"para_590"},{"text":"from a term’s ordinary meaning.” Van Buren v. United","paragraph_id":"para_591"},{"text":"States, 593 U.S. 374, 387 (2021) (simplified). And this rule","paragraph_id":"para_592"},{"text":"applies even if an earlier Congress had a different definition.","paragraph_id":"para_593"},{"text":"So if the 1993 Congress thought RFRA meant one thing, it","paragraph_id":"para_594"},{"text":"doesn’t matter because the 2000 Congress changed its","paragraph_id":"para_595"},{"text":"meaning. The upshot is that RLUIPA—not judicial","paragraph_id":"para_596"},{"text":"interpretations of the First Amendment—now governs the","paragraph_id":"para_597"},{"text":"contours of religious exercise.","paragraph_id":"para_598"},{"text":"20 AZ MINING REFORM COAL. V. U.S. FOREST SERV.","paragraph_id":"para_599"},{"text":"So how does RLUIPA define “religious exercise”? Very","paragraph_id":"para_600"},{"text":"expansively. RLUIPA’s definition consists of two parts. It","paragraph_id":"para_601"},{"text":"first explains what the term means “[i]n general”: “‘religious","paragraph_id":"para_602"},{"text":"exercise’ includes any exercise of religion, whether or not","paragraph_id":"para_603"},{"text":"compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” 42","paragraph_id":"para_604"},{"text":"U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7)(A). It then provides a “Rule” for","paragraph_id":"para_605"},{"text":"interpreting the term: “The use, building, or conversion of","paragraph_id":"para_606"},{"text":"real property for the purpose of religious exercise shall be","paragraph_id":"para_607"},{"text":"considered to be religious exercise of the person or entity","paragraph_id":"para_608"},{"text":"that uses or intends to use the property for that purpose.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_609"},{"text":"§ 2000cc-5(7)(B). And finally, “Congress mandated that","paragraph_id":"para_610"},{"text":"this concept ‘be construed in favor of a broad protection of","paragraph_id":"para_611"},{"text":"religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the","paragraph_id":"para_612"},{"text":"terms of this chapter and the Constitution.’” Hobby Lobby,","paragraph_id":"para_613"},{"text":"573 U.S. at 696 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-3(g)). This","paragraph_id":"para_614"},{"text":"means that “the ‘exercise of religion’ under RFRA must be","paragraph_id":"para_615"},{"text":"given the same broad meaning that applies under RLUIPA.”","paragraph_id":"para_616"},{"text":"Id. at 696 n.5.","paragraph_id":"para_617"},{"text":"None of this was accidental. “[W]hen Congress fine-","paragraph_id":"para_618"},{"text":"tunes its statutory definitions, it tends to do so with a purpose","paragraph_id":"para_619"},{"text":"in mind.” S.D. Warren Co. v. Me. Bd. of Env’t Prot., 547","paragraph_id":"para_620"},{"text":"U.S. 370, 384 (2006).","paragraph_id":"para_621"},{"text":"So whatever the merit of the Apache Stronghold","paragraph_id":"para_622"},{"text":"majority’s position on Lyng, that position makes little sense","paragraph_id":"para_623"},{"text":"after RFRA’s 2000 amendment. Suppose the majority is","paragraph_id":"para_624"},{"text":"right that RFRA as originally passed came with a Lyng-sized","paragraph_id":"para_625"},{"text":"carveout. The majority justified this by claiming that the","paragraph_id":"para_626"},{"text":"phrase “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion”","paragraph_id":"para_627"},{"text":"must be read “against the backdrop of existing law,”","paragraph_id":"para_628"},{"text":"particularly “the body of law discussed in the separate","paragraph_id":"para_629"},{"text":"opinions in Smith, which concerned the very issue","paragraph_id":"para_630"},{"text":"addressed” by RFRA. Apache Stronghold, 101 F.4th at","paragraph_id":"para_631"},{"text":"1058–59 (Collins, J.) (simplified). So according to the","paragraph_id":"para_632"},{"text":"AZ MINING REFORM COAL. V. U.S. FOREST SERV. 21","paragraph_id":"para_633"},{"text":"second en banc majority, “substantial burden” must be read","paragraph_id":"para_634"},{"text":"in the context of First Amendment decisions. Further, the","paragraph_id":"para_635"},{"text":"majority tied Lyng directly to the precise phrasing of the First","paragraph_id":"para_636"},{"text":"Amendment: “As a decision about the scope of the term","paragraph_id":"para_637"},{"text":"‘prohibiting,’ Lyng defines the outer bounds of what counts","paragraph_id":"para_638"},{"text":"as a cognizable substantial burden imposed by the","paragraph_id":"para_639"},{"text":"government.” Id. at 1061 (emphasis omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_640"},{"text":"The majority’s logic stops working as soon as RFRA","paragraph_id":"para_641"},{"text":"incorporates RLUIPA’s broader definition of “religious","paragraph_id":"para_642"},{"text":"exercise.”","paragraph_id":"para_643"},{"text":"First, “Congress deleted the reference to the First","paragraph_id":"para_644"},{"text":"Amendment.” Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at 696. This was “an","paragraph_id":"para_645"},{"text":"obvious effort to effect a complete separation from First","paragraph_id":"para_646"},{"text":"Amendment case law.” Id. The majority can’t “explain why","paragraph_id":"para_647"},{"text":"Congress did this if it wanted to tie RFRA coverage tightly","paragraph_id":"para_648"},{"text":"to the specific holdings of [the Supreme Court’s] pre-Smith","paragraph_id":"para_649"},{"text":"free-exercise cases.” Id. at 714. Thus, even if 1993 RFRA","paragraph_id":"para_650"},{"text":"incorporated pre-Smith limitations on “substantial burden,”","paragraph_id":"para_651"},{"text":"those precedents, including Lyng, no longer dictate what acts","paragraph_id":"para_652"},{"text":"“substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.” 42","paragraph_id":"para_653"},{"text":"U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a). Now, “substantial burden” must be","paragraph_id":"para_654"},{"text":"read in light of the new definition of “religious exercise,”","paragraph_id":"para_655"},{"text":"which has no Lyng-style carveouts and more closely follows","paragraph_id":"para_656"},{"text":"the plain meaning of the term. Id. § 2000bb-2(4).","paragraph_id":"para_657"},{"text":"Second, after RLUIPA, there is no reason to import the","paragraph_id":"para_658"},{"text":"term “prohibiting” from the Free Exercise Clause. See U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_659"},{"text":"Const. amend. I (“Congress shall make no law respecting an","paragraph_id":"para_660"},{"text":"establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise","paragraph_id":"para_661"},{"text":"thereof . . . .”). The precise phrasing of the Free Exercise","paragraph_id":"para_662"},{"text":"Clause was the linchpin of Lyng’s constitutional holding.","paragraph_id":"para_663"},{"text":"See 485 U.S. at 453, 456. Congress expressly decoupled","paragraph_id":"para_664"},{"text":"RFRA from these limitations when it subbed in RLUIPA’s","paragraph_id":"para_665"},{"text":"22 AZ MINING REFORM COAL. V. U.S. FOREST SERV.","paragraph_id":"para_666"},{"text":"definition of “religious exercise.” See 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-","paragraph_id":"para_667"},{"text":"2(4). The First Amendment’s phrasing is out; the new","paragraph_id":"para_668"},{"text":"RLUIPA definition of “religious exercise” is in. Compare","paragraph_id":"para_669"},{"text":"§ 5(4), 107 Stat. at 1489 (“[T]he term ‘exercise of religion’","paragraph_id":"para_670"},{"text":"means the exercise of religion under the First Amendment to","paragraph_id":"para_671"},{"text":"the Constitution.”), with 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-2(4) (“[T]he","paragraph_id":"para_672"},{"text":"term ‘exercise of religion’ means religious exercise, as","paragraph_id":"para_673"},{"text":"defined in section 2000cc-5 of this title.”). And so past","paragraph_id":"para_674"},{"text":"interpretations of whether the government has “prohibited”","paragraph_id":"para_675"},{"text":"free exercise are not the standard by which we should read","paragraph_id":"para_676"},{"text":"RFRA.","paragraph_id":"para_677"},{"text":"Third, the majority’s carveout for federal lands now","paragraph_id":"para_678"},{"text":"flouts RFRA’s plain text. Under RFRA’s amended text, a","paragraph_id":"para_679"},{"text":"substantial burden on the “use of real property” for a","paragraph_id":"para_680"},{"text":"religious purpose now expressly triggers strict scrutiny. See","paragraph_id":"para_681"},{"text":"42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7)(B). There’s no carveout for “real","paragraph_id":"para_682"},{"text":"property” owned and managed by the United States. It’s","paragraph_id":"para_683"},{"text":"easy to see why. Begin with the statute’s rule: the","paragraph_id":"para_684"},{"text":"“Government shall not substantially burden a person’s","paragraph_id":"para_685"},{"text":"exercise of religion.” Id. § 2000bb-1(a). In turn, “exercise","paragraph_id":"para_686"},{"text":"of religion” “means religious exercise” as defined by","paragraph_id":"para_687"},{"text":"RLUIPA. Id. § 2000bb-2(4). And RLUIPA defines","paragraph_id":"para_688"},{"text":"“religious exercise” to mean “any exercise of religion,” id.","paragraph_id":"para_689"},{"text":"§ 2000cc-5(7)(A) (emphasis added), including “[t]he use,","paragraph_id":"para_690"},{"text":"building, or conversion of real property for the purpose of","paragraph_id":"para_691"},{"text":"religious exercise,” id. § 2000cc-5(7)(B). And this rule","paragraph_id":"para_692"},{"text":"focuses on the claimants’ “use” of the land—it doesn’t","paragraph_id":"para_693"},{"text":"require that they own it. Id. Taking these definitions","paragraph_id":"para_694"},{"text":"together, RFRA now prohibits the federal government from","paragraph_id":"para_695"},{"text":"substantially burdening a person’s use of real property for","paragraph_id":"para_696"},{"text":"the purpose of religious exercise—no matter who owns the","paragraph_id":"para_697"},{"text":"land.","paragraph_id":"para_698"},{"text":"AZ MINING REFORM COAL. V. U.S. FOREST SERV. 23","paragraph_id":"para_699"},{"text":"Finally, RLUIPA’s amendment to RFRA gives “exercise","paragraph_id":"para_700"},{"text":"of religion” an extra gloss. RLUIPA provides that religious","paragraph_id":"para_701"},{"text":"exercise “shall be construed in favor of a broad protection of","paragraph_id":"para_702"},{"text":"religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the","paragraph_id":"para_703"},{"text":"terms of this chapter and the Constitution.” 42 U.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_704"},{"text":"§ 2000cc-3(g). This rule of construction applies with equal","paragraph_id":"para_705"},{"text":"force to RFRA. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at 696 n.5. And it’s","paragraph_id":"para_706"},{"text":"“simply not possible to read these provisions as restricting","paragraph_id":"para_707"},{"text":"the concept of the ‘exercise of religion’ to those practices","paragraph_id":"para_708"},{"text":"specifically addressed in [the Supreme Court’s] pre-Smith","paragraph_id":"para_709"},{"text":"decisions.” Id. at 714. Thus, what substantially burdens the","paragraph_id":"para_710"},{"text":"exercise of religion must be read broadly.","paragraph_id":"para_711"},{"text":"Post-2000, there is no Lyng carveout to RFRA. “[I]f the","paragraph_id":"para_712"},{"text":"original text of RFRA was not clear enough on this","paragraph_id":"para_713"},{"text":"point . . . the amendment of RFRA through RLUIPA surely","paragraph_id":"para_714"},{"text":"dispels any doubt.” Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at 714.","paragraph_id":"para_715"},{"text":"RLUIPA’s amendment shows that the majority’s “real","paragraph_id":"para_716"},{"text":"property” exclusion can’t be squared with the text. The","paragraph_id":"para_717"},{"text":"majority based its implied RFRA carveout on a First","paragraph_id":"para_718"},{"text":"Amendment precedent (Lyng), see Apache Stronghold, 101","paragraph_id":"para_719"},{"text":"F.4th at 1044 (per curiam), but Congress expressly took the","paragraph_id":"para_720"},{"text":"First Amendment out of RFRA’s definitional scope, see 42","paragraph_id":"para_721"},{"text":"U.S.C. § 2000bb-2(4). And the majority centered that","paragraph_id":"para_722"},{"text":"carveout on land, see Apache Stronghold, 101 F.4th at 1044","paragraph_id":"para_723"},{"text":"(per curiam), but Congress put “real property” directly","paragraph_id":"para_724"},{"text":"within RFRA’s ambit, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb-2(4),","paragraph_id":"para_725"},{"text":"2000cc-5(7)(B).","paragraph_id":"para_726"},{"text":"C.","paragraph_id":"para_727"},{"text":"The majority largely ignored the import of the 2000","paragraph_id":"para_728"},{"text":"RFRA update. The majority downplayed Congress taking","paragraph_id":"para_729"},{"text":"the First Amendment out of RFRA’s definition section as","paragraph_id":"para_730"},{"text":"merely “decoupling . . . what activities count as the ‘exercise","paragraph_id":"para_731"},{"text":"24 AZ MINING REFORM COAL. V. U.S. FOREST SERV.","paragraph_id":"para_732"},{"text":"of religion’ from the Free Exercise Clause.” Apache","paragraph_id":"para_733"},{"text":"Stronghold, 101 F.4th at 1063 (Collins, J.). In the majority’s","paragraph_id":"para_734"},{"text":"mind, it could stick to its guns on a narrow interpretation of","paragraph_id":"para_735"},{"text":"RFRA because (1) “Congress did not alter the phrase","paragraph_id":"para_736"},{"text":"‘substantial burden,’” and (2) the phrase should not be","paragraph_id":"para_737"},{"text":"“decoupled from any notion of what counts as ‘prohibiting’","paragraph_id":"para_738"},{"text":"the free exercise of religion under pre-Smith caselaw.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_739"},{"text":"So, for the majority, the Lyng carveout survived.","paragraph_id":"para_740"},{"text":"The majority’s argument fails for several reasons. First,","paragraph_id":"para_741"},{"text":"“we do not . . . construe statutory phrases in isolation; we","paragraph_id":"para_742"},{"text":"read statutes as a whole.” Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305,","paragraph_id":"para_743"},{"text":"319 (2010) (simplified). Applying that lesson to RFRA as","paragraph_id":"para_744"},{"text":"amended, it makes little sense to read a single phrase","paragraph_id":"para_745"},{"text":"(“substantially burden”) in isolation and ignore that it is part","paragraph_id":"para_746"},{"text":"of a larger provision (“Government shall not substantially","paragraph_id":"para_747"},{"text":"burden a person’s exercise of religion.”). See 42 U.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_748"},{"text":"§ 2000bb-1(a). But that’s what the majority would have us","paragraph_id":"para_749"},{"text":"believe. It says we can presume that “substantially burden”","paragraph_id":"para_750"},{"text":"contains pre-Smith Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence, even","paragraph_id":"para_751"},{"text":"though Congress expressly said that “exercise of religion”","paragraph_id":"para_752"},{"text":"does not. The majority would then have us believe that","paragraph_id":"para_753"},{"text":"Congress altering “exercise of religion” would have no","paragraph_id":"para_754"},{"text":"impact on what counts as a “substantial burden” even though","paragraph_id":"para_755"},{"text":"they are interrelated concepts—part of one statutory","paragraph_id":"para_756"},{"text":"command. We should be “disinclined to say that what","paragraph_id":"para_757"},{"text":"Congress imposed with one hand . . . it withdrew with the","paragraph_id":"para_758"},{"text":"other.” Abbott v. United States, 562 U.S. 8, 21 (2010)","paragraph_id":"para_759"},{"text":"(simplified).","paragraph_id":"para_760"},{"text":"Second, it doesn’t make sense to assert that the 2000","paragraph_id":"para_761"},{"text":"amendment only “decoupl[ed]” the First Amendment from","paragraph_id":"para_762"},{"text":"certain “activities.” Apache Stronghold, 101 F.4th at 1063","paragraph_id":"para_763"},{"text":"(Collins, J.). Nothing in RFRA’s amended text supports this","paragraph_id":"para_764"},{"text":"artificial narrowing of its meaning. Simply, when Congress","paragraph_id":"para_765"},{"text":"AZ MINING REFORM COAL. V. U.S. FOREST SERV. 25","paragraph_id":"para_766"},{"text":"amended RFRA, it changed the entire definitional scope of","paragraph_id":"para_767"},{"text":"“exercise of religion.” Congress replaced an old definition","paragraph_id":"para_768"},{"text":"premised on the Free Exercise Clause with a customized","paragraph_id":"para_769"},{"text":"definition imported from RLUIPA that—as the majority","paragraph_id":"para_770"},{"text":"itself admits—gives “‘exercise of religion’ . . . a broader","paragraph_id":"para_771"},{"text":"meaning for purposes of RFRA.” Id. at 1062; see Holt v.","paragraph_id":"para_772"},{"text":"Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352, 358 (2015) (noting that the new","paragraph_id":"para_773"},{"text":"definition “underscore[s RLUIPA’s] expansive protection","paragraph_id":"para_774"},{"text":"for religious liberty”). The majority overlooks that when","paragraph_id":"para_775"},{"text":"Congress amended RFRA, it didn’t just say what the law","paragraph_id":"para_776"},{"text":"protects—many “activities,” to be sure—but that it’s no","paragraph_id":"para_777"},{"text":"longer limited to protecting the constitutional concept of free","paragraph_id":"para_778"},{"text":"exercise that’s central to the majority’s position. And","paragraph_id":"para_779"},{"text":"limiting RFRA in this way violates Congress’s command to","paragraph_id":"para_780"},{"text":"construe “religious exercise” in “favor of a broad protection","paragraph_id":"para_781"},{"text":"of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by","paragraph_id":"para_782"},{"text":"the terms of this chapter and the Constitution.” Hobby","paragraph_id":"para_783"},{"text":"Lobby, 573 U.S. at 696 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-3(g)).","paragraph_id":"para_784"},{"text":"Finally, the majority has no answer to Congress","paragraph_id":"para_785"},{"text":"clarifying that the “use . . . of real property for the purpose","paragraph_id":"para_786"},{"text":"of religious exercise shall be considered to be religious","paragraph_id":"para_787"},{"text":"exercise.” See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7)(B). So even though","paragraph_id":"para_788"},{"text":"Congress explicitly recognized the use of “real property” for","paragraph_id":"para_789"},{"text":"religious purposes as “religious exercise,” the majority","paragraph_id":"para_790"},{"text":"somehow says that’s not good enough to make it a","paragraph_id":"para_791"},{"text":"cognizable burden under its narrow definition of “substantial","paragraph_id":"para_792"},{"text":"burden.” By keeping Lyng in place, the majority effectively","paragraph_id":"para_793"},{"text":"overruled Congress and maintained that the “use . . . of real","paragraph_id":"para_794"},{"text":"property” is unprotected by RFRA if it involves federal","paragraph_id":"para_795"},{"text":"government property.","paragraph_id":"para_796"},{"text":"26 AZ MINING REFORM COAL. V. U.S. FOREST SERV.","paragraph_id":"para_797"},{"text":"II.","paragraph_id":"para_798"},{"text":"Given the change in statutory text, arguments that RFRA","paragraph_id":"para_799"},{"text":"doesn’t reach the government’s land transfer at Oak Flat “are","paragraph_id":"para_800"},{"text":"reasonable so far as they go, but they do not go very far.”","paragraph_id":"para_801"},{"text":"Graham Cnty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United","paragraph_id":"para_802"},{"text":"States ex rel. Wilson, 559 U.S. 280, 296 (2010). Because the","paragraph_id":"para_803"},{"text":"Western Apache “use” the government’s “real property for","paragraph_id":"para_804"},{"text":"the purpose of religious exercise,” 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb-","paragraph_id":"para_805"},{"text":"2(4), 2000cc-5(7)(B), RFRA applies and the government","paragraph_id":"para_806"},{"text":"must prove that the land exchange here is the least restrictive","paragraph_id":"para_807"},{"text":"means of furthering a compelling governmental interest, see","paragraph_id":"para_808"},{"text":"id. § 2000bb-1(b)(1)–(2).","paragraph_id":"para_809"},{"text":"The term “real property” as used in § 2000cc-5(7)(B) of","paragraph_id":"para_810"},{"text":"RLUIPA (and so in RFRA) must reach Oak Flat. Congress","paragraph_id":"para_811"},{"text":"didn’t define “real property,” and nothing indicates a","paragraph_id":"para_812"},{"text":"specialized meaning—so common meaning governs. See","paragraph_id":"para_813"},{"text":"Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 608","paragraph_id":"para_814"},{"text":"U.S. 235, 246 (2026) (giving “property” in 1996 federal","paragraph_id":"para_815"},{"text":"statute its “[o]rdinary meaning,” as found in contemporary","paragraph_id":"para_816"},{"text":"Black’s Law Dictionary). Any alternative interpretation","paragraph_id":"para_817"},{"text":"runs headlong into the rule that “without strong proof of” a","paragraph_id":"para_818"},{"text":"departure from ordinary meaning, “commonly used terms","paragraph_id":"para_819"},{"text":"should be given their common meaning.” Mullin v. Doe, 146","paragraph_id":"para_820"},{"text":"S. Ct. 2121, 2135 (2026).","paragraph_id":"para_821"},{"text":"In 2000, “real property” meant “[l]and and anything","paragraph_id":"para_822"},{"text":"growing on, attached to, or erected on it, excluding anything","paragraph_id":"para_823"},{"text":"that may be severed without injury to the land. Real property","paragraph_id":"para_824"},{"text":"can be either corporeal (soil and buildings) or incorporeal","paragraph_id":"para_825"},{"text":"(easements).” Property, Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed.","paragraph_id":"para_826"},{"text":"1999). That describes Oak Flat perfectly, with its “old-","paragraph_id":"para_827"},{"text":"growth oak groves, sacred springs, burial locations,","paragraph_id":"para_828"},{"text":"and . . . singular concentration of archaeological sites.”","paragraph_id":"para_829"},{"text":"AZ MINING REFORM COAL. V. U.S. FOREST SERV. 27","paragraph_id":"para_830"},{"text":"Apache Stronghold, 145 S. Ct. at 1480 (Gorsuch, J.,","paragraph_id":"para_831"},{"text":"dissenting from denial of certiorari).","paragraph_id":"para_832"},{"text":"This definition of real property isn’t limited by","paragraph_id":"para_833"},{"text":"provisions of RLUIPA that Congress didn’t put in RFRA.","paragraph_id":"para_834"},{"text":"RLUIPA defines a “land use regulation” as “a zoning or","paragraph_id":"para_835"},{"text":"landmarking law, or the application of such a law, that limits","paragraph_id":"para_836"},{"text":"or restricts a claimant’s use or development of land","paragraph_id":"para_837"},{"text":"(including a structure affixed to land), if the claimant has an","paragraph_id":"para_838"},{"text":"ownership, leasehold, easement, servitude, or other property","paragraph_id":"para_839"},{"text":"interest in the regulated land or a contract or option to","paragraph_id":"para_840"},{"text":"acquire such an interest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(5). If","paragraph_id":"para_841"},{"text":"Congress wanted to import § 2000cc-5(5) into RFRA, it","paragraph_id":"para_842"},{"text":"could have done so. But Congress only imported one","paragraph_id":"para_843"},{"text":"definition—“‘exercise of religion’ means religious exercise,","paragraph_id":"para_844"},{"text":"as defined in section 2000cc-5”—and that definition is at","paragraph_id":"para_845"},{"text":"§ 2000cc-5(7). 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-2(4). It matters not that","paragraph_id":"para_846"},{"text":"an implied “limit comes from a related provision rather than","paragraph_id":"para_847"},{"text":"thin air”: “snipping words from one subsection and grafting","paragraph_id":"para_848"},{"text":"them onto another violates our normal interpretive","paragraph_id":"para_849"},{"text":"principles.” Fischer v. United States, 603 U.S. 480, 508","paragraph_id":"para_850"},{"text":"(2024) (Barrett, J., dissenting).","paragraph_id":"para_851"},{"text":"RFRA and RLUIPA also do different things. RFRA","paragraph_id":"para_852"},{"text":"applies only to the federal government and its “covered","paragraph_id":"para_853"},{"text":"entities,” but it restricts them from doing a lot—the law","paragraph_id":"para_854"},{"text":"“provide[s] very broad protection for religious liberty,” “far","paragraph_id":"para_855"},{"text":"beyond what th[e Supreme] Court has held is","paragraph_id":"para_856"},{"text":"constitutionally required.” Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at 706.","paragraph_id":"para_857"},{"text":"RLUIPA, “[l]ess sweeping than RFRA[] and invoking","paragraph_id":"para_858"},{"text":"federal authority under the Spending and Commerce","paragraph_id":"para_859"},{"text":"Clauses,” applies to state and local action, but only in “two","paragraph_id":"para_860"},{"text":"areas” of particular concern to Congress: abuse of land-use","paragraph_id":"para_861"},{"text":"regulations and worship behind bars. Cutter v. Wilkinson,","paragraph_id":"para_862"},{"text":"28 AZ MINING REFORM COAL. V. U.S. FOREST SERV.","paragraph_id":"para_863"},{"text":"544 U.S. 709, 715 (2005). So there’s no reason to impose","paragraph_id":"para_864"},{"text":"RLUIPA’s land-use provision on RFRA.","paragraph_id":"para_865"},{"text":"In other words, limiting RFRA’s scope in “real property”","paragraph_id":"para_866"},{"text":"cases to RLUIPA’s “land use regulation” cases wouldn’t just","paragraph_id":"para_867"},{"text":"be textually unfounded. It would erode RFRA’s “very broad","paragraph_id":"para_868"},{"text":"protection,” Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at 706, while ignoring","paragraph_id":"para_869"},{"text":"that Congress passed RLUIPA and only RLUIPA under its","paragraph_id":"para_870"},{"text":"“limited and enumerated powers” to govern States, Landor","paragraph_id":"para_871"},{"text":"v. La. Dep’t of Corr. & Pub. Safety, 146 S. Ct. 1931, 1939","paragraph_id":"para_872"},{"text":"(2026). All the more reason to “stick with the ordinary","paragraph_id":"para_873"},{"text":"meaning of the text that actually applies[.]” Corner Post,","paragraph_id":"para_874"},{"text":"Inc. v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Rsrv. Sys., 603 U.S. 799,","paragraph_id":"para_875"},{"text":"816 (2024).","paragraph_id":"para_876"},{"text":"III.","paragraph_id":"para_877"},{"text":"Conclusion","paragraph_id":"para_878"},{"text":"The Western Apache use Oak Flat to speak to their","paragraph_id":"para_879"},{"text":"Creator. That is enough to receive RFRA’s protection. The","paragraph_id":"para_880"},{"text":"Apache Stronghold majority’s analysis might’ve been right","paragraph_id":"para_881"},{"text":"at some point, but not today. Rather than keep Apache","paragraph_id":"para_882"},{"text":"Stronghold in place to exclude worshippers on government","paragraph_id":"para_883"},{"text":"land, we should’ve swept it out of the Ninth Circuit.","paragraph_id":"para_884"},{"text":"I respectfully dissent.","paragraph_id":"para_885"}],"word_count":6973,"cites":["583\nU.S. 109","529 U.S.\n362","485 U.S.\n439","158 U.S. 564","485 U.S. 439","259 U.S. 182","605 U.S. 38","494 U.S. 872","597 U.S. 507","374 U.S. 398","406 U.S. 205","521 U.S. 507","573 U.S. 682","201 U.S. 400","593 U.S. 374","547\nU.S. 370","560 U.S. 305","562 U.S. 8","574 U.S. 352","559 U.S. 280","608\nU.S. 235","603 U.S. 480","544 U.S. 709","603 U.S. 799","101 F.4th 1036","38 F.4th 742","56 F.4th 636","95 F.4th 608","535 F.3d\n1058","172 F.4th\n641","535 F.3d 1058"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"0d07ede4784983a274d24b6bf8155a8158cad67d5ca444929abe7ba05d91961a","source_url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/29/25-5189.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-01T15:26:28.663+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca9-25-5189-2026-09-29","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca9-25-5189-2026-09-29","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca9-25-5189-2026-09-29","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca9-25-5189-2026-09-29","verification":{"stored_sha256":"0d07ede4784983a274d24b6bf8155a8158cad67d5ca444929abe7ba05d91961a","recomputed_sha256":"0d07ede4784983a274d24b6bf8155a8158cad67d5ca444929abe7ba05d91961a","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-18T01:12:38.685Z"}},"hash":"sha256:2dca4412a915c35418d512a2dc50c6f79192118be7949c07be32819fcdefb362","version":"legal-2026-10-17","expires":"2026-10-19T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-17+legal-2026-10-17+2026-10-17T17:42:33","content_hash":"sha256:2dca4412a915c35418d512a2dc50c6f79192118be7949c07be32819fcdefb362","revalidate_after":"2026-10-18T02:12:38.860Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-25-5189-2026-09-29","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca9-25-5189-2026-09-29"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca9-25-5189-2026-09-29"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca9-25-5189-2026-09-29"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ca9-25-5189-2026-09-29","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-7855bf5a6a09fb31ba4cd2fc16689d82","response_hash":"sha256:2dca4412a915c35418d512a2dc50c6f79192118be7949c07be32819fcdefb362"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T11:42:10.574Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aca9-25-5189-2026-09-29&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":33212}}