The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a case challenging the Air Force’s decades-long practice of detonating hazardous munitions at Tarague Beach in Guam. The lawsuit, brought by the conservation group Prutehi Guåhan, centers on whether federal agencies must conduct environmental impact studies before renewing permits for munitions disposal.
Supreme Court Arguments on Munitions Disposal
During a 75-minute hearing on October 7, 2026, the Supreme Court considered the dispute in Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guåhan. The case hinges on whether the Air Force’s 2021 application to renew its permit for open burning and open detonation (OB/OD) at Tarague Beach constitutes a final agency action
that can be challenged in federal court under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Air Force has used the site since 1982, but in 2021, the agency applied for a permit to continue the practice, leading the Guam Environmental Protection Agency to delay the renewal following public comments.
Sopan Joshi, assistant to the solicitor general, contended that the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requires environmental analysis at various stages of the permit process, thereby displacing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Justice Neil Gorsuch, however, paused arguments to note that the court usually asks parties to comply with both of Congress’ commands if they can, stating, I said if you can do both, there’s no conflict and we try to reconcile and obey all of Congress’ commands.
In contrast, attorneys for Prutehi Guåhan, represented by Earthjustice, maintain that NEPA is a “lifeline” for communities seeking to protect natural resources. Caroline Flynn, an attorney with Earthjustice, told the court that the possibility of future revision does not make an agency’s decision non-final.
Environmental and Cultural Stakes at Tarague Beach
The Air Force has utilized Tarague Beach for munitions disposal since 1982. Prutehi Guåhan, whose name means “Protect Guam” in the Chamorro language, argues that the detonations release heavy metals, explosive compounds, and other toxic contaminants into the air and soil. The group notes the area contains archaeological evidence dating back to the 2nd millennium BC.
“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
Justices Debate Premature Lawsuit Filing
The justices appeared divided on the procedural question of whether the lawsuit was filed prematurely. Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the legal basis for the group’s challenge, asking if there were previous examples of a federal court endorsing the claim that a permit application constitutes a final agency action. Similarly, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted a finality problem,
pointing out that the Air Force’s proposal is subject to being rewritten by the Guam EPA.
Justice Elena Kagan also expressed skepticism, noting that there is a gigantic contingency
involved in the permitting process. Outside the court, advocates including Adi Martínez-Román, co-founder and co-director of Right to Democracy, highlighted the regional implications, noting that Guam is ruled under the plenary power of Congress and that local residents often lack channels to influence federal decisions that affect their lives.
Appeals Court Ruling Sparks Supreme Court Challenge
The case reached the Supreme Court after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Prutehi Guåhan in 2025, reversing a district court decision that had dismissed the suit in 2022 on the grounds that the challenge was premature. A coalition of 10 states and the District of Columbia has filed an amicus brief supporting Prutehi Guåhan, arguing that NEPA requires federal agencies to look before they leap.
A separate coalition of 21 states, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and various industrial trade associations have filed briefs in support of the Air Force.
The Supreme Court’s decision is expected sometime next year. The outcome is expected to clarify how federal agencies manage overlapping environmental statutes and the extent to which communities can use NEPA to challenge military activities in U.S. territories.
