Does the military have to follow environmental law in Guam? The Supreme Court will decide

In January  2024, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear a major environmental lawsuit involving the US Air Force’s handling of hazardous munitions on Tarague Beach in Guam. The case, Department of Air Force v. Prutei Guåhan, will be argued during the Court’s term, which begins in October 2026.  The case could clarify how federal environmental review laws apply to military operations in US territories. 

At issue here is whether the Air Force must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) before renewing its permit to dispose of hazardous waste through open burning and detonation. This practice has been ongoing since 1982 on land located above a sole-source aquifer. This aquifer supplies drinking water to most of Guam’s residents and is near protected sea turtles and coral reefs. Environmental groups, including Prutehi Guåhan, argue that NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts and alternatives before taking major actions like renewing the permit.

“We continue to carry many scars of war and war games that remain in our landscape, our bodies, and in our hearts and minds,” said Moneaka Flores of Prutehi Guåhan. “We deserve justice for the harms that we continue to endure.” 

A federal district court initially dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the Air Force’s actions were not reviewable, but the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision, finding that submitting a permit renewal constitutes “final agency action” that triggers NEPA review. Lawyers for Prutehi Guåhan emphasized that “the good reason to require an agency like the Air Force to undertake a NEPA analysis before seeking a hazardous-waste-disposal permit is self-evident: to force that agency to consider the environmental consequences of its proposed course of action before it chooses that course.” 

“For years, the Air Force has chosen to dispose of its munitions stockpile by exploding bombs on our clients’ ancestral lands and threatening most of Guam’s drinking water supply,” David Henkin of Earthjustice, representing Prutehi Guåhan added.

The federal government, however, argues that NEPA does not apply because the disposal is already regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and that courts should not interfere before the Air Force completes its internal processes. The government warned that allowing a preemptive lawsuit “threatens to burden the military, other agencies and federal courts with premature, wasteful and duplicative proceedings that Congress never contemplated.” 

Beyond the environmental specifics, the case raises broader questions about how and when federal environmental review obligations are triggered and how NEPA interacts with other federal laws. Legal analysts note that, because NEPA applies to most federal actions, the Supreme Court’s decision could influence environmental and military permitting nationwide. Oral arguments are expected in Fall 2026, with a ruling likely by mid-2027. Legal experts say the Court’s decision could set a precedent defining the balance between military and federal agency discretion and environmental oversight.