The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a case challenging the U.S. Air Force’s longstanding practice of detonating expired munitions and disposing of hazardous military waste on Tarague Beach in Guam. The case centers on whether the Air Force sufficiently complied with environmental regulations when renewing a permit to continue the explosions, which take place on a tropical shoreline that supports sensitive wildlife and cultural sites.
For decades, the Air Force has used the beach, located near the northern tip of Guam within Andersen Air Force Base, to dispose of dangerous ordnance including rockets, bombs, and other explosives. The practice has drawn criticism from Prutehi Guahan, a local nonprofit dedicated to protecting Guam’s natural environment and indigenous Chamorro cultural heritage. The group argued that the military failed to properly evaluate the environmental impact of the detonation program and did not provide adequate opportunities for public input when renewing its hazardous waste permit issued by the Guam Environmental Protection Agency.
The nonprofit’s lawsuit contended that the explosions harm the fragile marine ecosystem, local archaeological sites, traditional fishing areas, and even Guam’s water supply by releasing toxins and debris into the air and ocean. Prutehi Guahan also emphasized the broader significance of federal environmental laws, describing them as one of the few means for Guam residents—U.S. citizens without presidential voting rights—to influence federal activities that affect their island.
The legal dispute hinges on environmental statutes, particularly the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which governs hazardous waste permits, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to take a “hard look” at environmental consequences before proceeding with actions that may significantly affect the environment. The Air Force maintains that its permit renewal process under RCRA ensures compliance with environmental laws and does not require additional NEPA review. The military asserts that imposing further environmental assessments would unduly complicate and delay the permit process.
During Wednesday’s arguments, several justices expressed concern about setting a precedent that could either limit citizens’ ability to challenge military programs or open the courts to numerous lawsuits. The case reflects broader tensions regarding environmental oversight of military activities on Guam, a strategically important U.S. territory located closer to Beijing than to Hawaii and home to about 170,000 residents.
The 2025 ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had a divided outcome. The majority found that the Air Force had not sufficiently studied environmental impacts or engaged the public properly when renewing the permit, suggesting that a more thorough review could have led to different disposal methods or locations. A dissenting judge argued that continuing the detonations was justified.
Supporters of Prutehi Guahan point to the beach’s cultural significance as part of the Chamorro people’s heritage, with archaeological remains and natural habitats nearby. Opponents stress the operational necessity of the site for safely disposing of hazardous military ordnance.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision by late June, which will have important implications for environmental regulation, military operations, and community rights in Guam.