The United States Supreme Court is weighing whether the U.S. Air Force must conduct an environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act before renewing a permit to detonate hazardous munitions on a coastal site in Guam, raising complex questions about overlapping federal laws and territorial representation.
The high court heard roughly 75 minutes of oral arguments in Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan, a legal challenge centered on the ongoing military use of Tarague Beach (adjacent to Andersen Air Force Base in northern Guam). The dispute turns on whether an application submitted in 2021 to renew a hazardous waste permit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act constitutes a final agency action reviewable in court, and whether that statute displaces the environmental impact assessments typically required under federal law.
Air Force Seeks Permit to Detonate Munitions on Guam
For more than four decades, the military has utilized the northern Guam coastline for munitions disposal. The Air Force established the range in 1982 to dispose of hazardous munitions—including ammunition, tear gas, and propellants—through open detonation. While open burning at the site stopped in the early 2000s, detonation operations have continued.
In May 2021, the Air Force submitted an application to the Guam Environmental Protection Agency to renew its permit (seeking to detonate around 30,000 pounds and open burn 5,000 pounds of waste munitions). That filing prompted immediate pushback. The local nonprofit group Prutehi Guåhan, whose name means Protect Guam in the Chamorro language, filed a lawsuit in January 2022 arguing that the Air Force failed to complete an environmental assessment or impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act before submitting the paperwork.
“This is not an exaggeration on an island where 30% of our lands are occupied by military bases, and we are inundated with comment period after comment period, war training, weapon training, round after round. NEPA helps us address our concerns and weigh in on projects that have the potential to cause serious harm.”
Monaeka Flores, executive director of Prutehi Guåhan
The disposal range is located on ancestral land. The site sits atop Guam’s main source of drinking water. Legal representatives for the community group emphasize that waste explosives release toxic chemicals — like smoke, explosive material, and heavy metals — into the air and soil when detonated.
Supreme Court Arguments on Statutory Overlap and Final Agency Action
During Wednesday’s proceedings, the justices wrestled with deep procedural complexities regarding how two federal environmental laws interact. Representing the federal government, Sopan Joshi, assistant to the solicitor general, argued that [a] permit application is not final agency action
but rather a request that initiates an ongoing dialogue with local regulators where outcomes remain a moving target.
The government maintained that the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act provides a specific, comprehensive regulatory framework for hazardous waste that displaces the broader procedural mandates of the National Environmental Policy Act. Early in the arguments, Justice Neil Gorsuch interrupted Joshi to challenge the premise that the two statutory commands are inherently contradictory, noting that the judiciary typically expects agencies to comply with both directives if possible.
Other justices voiced skepticism about the practical timeline of the government’s permitting stance. Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns regarding the finality of the application and the possibility that the permit might not be issued in the way the Air Force proposed.
Lower Court History and Amicus Support for Prutehi Guåhan
The Supreme Court review follows a series of conflicting lower court rulings. A federal district court initially dismissed Prutehi Guåhan’s lawsuit in 2022, concluding that the permit application did not qualify as a final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act and that hazardous waste regulations superseded NEPA requirements.
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned that dismissal, ruling for Prutehi Guahan. The previous RCRA permit for Tarague Beach had been issued in 2018.
Ahead of the Supreme Court showdown, the challenge drew substantial outside interest. A coalition of 10 states and the District of Columbia filed briefs supporting the local conservation group. Conversely, a separate coalition representing 21 states, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and industrial trade associations backed the Air Force position.
Advocates for the territory frame the litigation as a vital check against local disenfranchisement. Because Guam is an unincorporated U.S. territory whose residents do not vote for president, community leaders argue that robust environmental review statutes provide one of the few formal avenues for public voice in federal actions.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a final decision in the case next year.