The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a dispute over a practice that sounds almost too blunt to be a federal case: the U.S. Air Force's open-air detonation of hazardous military waste on a beach in Guam.

The case, Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guåhan, centers on Tarague Beach, next to Andersen Air Force Base, where the Air Force disposes of old ammunition, tear gas and propellants — including by blowing them up in the open. Prutehi Guåhan, a Guam-based environmental and cultural preservation group, says the Air Force has kept operating under an expired hazardous-waste permit for nearly five years without ever properly studying what the detonations do to the beach, the surrounding reef or nearby communities.

A fight over paperwork with real-world stakes

The legal question is narrower than the practice itself, but it matters: must the Air Force complete a full environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act before it even applies to renew its hazardous-waste permit under a separate law, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act? Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued for the Air Force that a permit application is "simply the initial step of an ongoing regulatory process" and not yet a final decision courts can review. Prutehi Guåhan's lawyers countered that the Air Force has effectively already made up its mind to keep detonating at the same site, making further review largely theater unless a court steps in now.

The case arrived at the justices after a winding path through the lower courts. Prutehi Guåhan first sued in federal court in Guam in January 2022. Chief U.S. District Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood dismissed the case as premature, ruling that NEPA's general review requirements didn't override the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act's own, more specific permitting process. A divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision and reinstated the lawsuit, prompting the Air Force to ask the Supreme Court to step in.

MASSIVE IMPLICATIONS BEYOND THIS CASE

The Air Force's brief warns that letting the 9th Circuit's ruling stand would have "massive implications beyond this case", potentially forcing federal agencies into lengthy environmental studies before they can even begin routine permit renewals nationwide. Earthjustice, which is representing Prutehi Guåhan, frames it differently: the group says it isn't asking to shut down the base's waste disposal, only to force the Air Force to "meaningfully consider the impacts of and alternatives" to detonating munitions in the open, including potentially less sensitive locations.

Guam advocacy groups and some environmental lawyers have cast the case as a test of whether a U.S. territory with no voting representation in Congress can hold federal agencies to the same environmental standards that apply on the mainland. A coalition including Blue Ocean Law filed an amicus brief backing Prutehi Guåhan.

No ruling is expected for months. The justices typically take until the end of their term in June to issue decisions in argued cases, meaning the Air Force's permit — and Tarague Beach's detonations — will likely continue under the current, long-expired permit in the meantime.