It actually makes some sense. The law apparently says BLM land can only be used for mining if you actually mine the land. Unless I am reading this wrong, the company apparently wanted to use BLM land to dump waste rock from a different mine operation.
BLM land should not be used as dumps for mining companies unless those companies are actively mining on another part of the same claim.
You’re not supposed to read the article. Freeper Rule #341.78.
A "claim" is a legally-defined and contracted area in which you extract a specific valuable mineral, and conduct associated activities. The BLM and Federal Regulations have long stipulated the "Mill Sites" (including dumps) may be included in an overall claim area, but must NOT be located on the valuable mineralized vein. The logic is simple - if you have a very valuable mineral vein, you don't allow structures or dumps on it, because such would impede future abilities to work that vein. Therefore, the Government itself has always said - build associated mills and dumps on a non-mineralized part of the claim.
Now NOTE below comment from the article
ARTICLE: The Ninth Circuit’s decision in 2022 upended long-standing precedent surrounding the 1872 Mining Law, which granted mining companies permission to use lands surrounding proposed mines for waste, even if those lands did not contain the minerals that formed the basis of their claim to the mine,
So this Court/Judge is taking 150 years of precedent, related agencies long-standing rules contained in the Federal Register, and simple logic - and turning them completely on their head, to make the entire BLM/Interior management concepts self-contradictory self-contradictory.
Its an absolutely STUPID ruling from precedent, current regulations, and mining practicality.