abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Lawsuit

1 Jan 2017

US Forest Service and others lawsuit (re Rosemont copper mine, USA)

Status: ONGOING

Date lawsuit was filed
1 Jan 2017
Date accuracy
Year Correct
Not applicable
NGO, Human Rights Defender
Location of Filing: United States of America
Location of Incident: United States of America
Type of Litigation: Domestic

Companies

Hudbay Minerals Canada Mining

Against other:

Government

Sources

Snapshot: In 2017, environmental organisations Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition, and the Sierra Club's Grand Canyon Chapter filed a lawsuit in a US District Court against several federal agencies, including the US Forest Service, challenging the US Forest Service's approval of Hudbay Minerals' Rosemont open-pit copper mine. They contended that the environmental impact assessment was flawed, arguing that the site lacked valuable minerals for extraction and that the proposed waste rock dumping would threaten local water supplies, the environment, and biodiversity. In 2019, the US District Court ruled in favour of the environmental organisations, arguing that the Forest Service's approval had no basis under the 1872 Mining Law. The company, as intervenor-defendant, and the US Department of Justice appealed this decision. In 2022, the 9th Circuit of Appeals upheld the lower court's ruling to halt the mine. The appeals court confirmed that the approval was illegal, citing the absence of valuable minerals and the danger of the project's toxic waste dumping. The case is ongoing.

Court Documents

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Opinion, 05 Dec 2022