Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
Environmentalists and Indian tribes challenged a land swap under which a copper mining company would obtain and mine specified Arizona land, causing damage to the environment and sacred Indian land.
What happened in this case?
Under a 2014 federal law, the Resolution copper mining company sought to accomplish a land swap with the U.S. Forest Service under which it would obtain and mine national forest land in an area known as Oak Flat, a sacred Apache religious ground. Under a 2014 federal law, the swap could not be approved unless the land Resolution would trade is appraised for the same value as the land it would receive. Several groups, representing both Indian and environmental interests, sought a preliminary injunction in federal court against the exchange. Earlier efforts by the Apaches to stop the project had been rejected, including by the Supreme Court.) The district court denied the injunction request and the challengers appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
In a 2-1 decision by Trump judge Daniel Bress and George W Bush judge Milan Smith, the Ninth Circuit rejected the appeal and affirmed the ruling denying a preliminary injunction. Clinton judge Johnnie Rawlinson partially dissented in the April 2026 ruling in Arizona Mining Reform Coalition v United States Forest Service.
What was the rationale of George W Bush judge Smith and Trump judge Bress?
Judge Smith wrote a decision, joined by Bress, that essentially agreed with the district court that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on their claims. The issue that sparked a dissent involved the appraisal, which the judges upheld as compliant with the law.
Why did Judge Rawlinson dissent?
Judge Rawlinson dissented from the portion of the decision upholding the use of the appraisal report prepared by the Forest Service, which she maintained required reconsideration of the entire decision. As she explained in detail, “the value” of what Resolution proposed to trade “is substantially less than the unrestricted ability to mine copper that it would obtain in the land transfer.” Rawlinson wrote that the case should therefore have been returned to the district court to reconsider the appraisal, temporarily stopping the action that will “completely annihilate sacred Indian lands.”
Why is the decision harmful?
The ruling by Trump judge Bress and George W Bush judge Smith obviously harms the efforts of Indians and environmentalists to preserve the Oak Flats land in Arizona. It also sets a bad precedent on land transfer and related issues in the Ninth Circuit, which includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. The case also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.