What to Know About Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guåhan

On October 7, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guåhan. The case centers on the U.S. Air Force’s open detonation of hazardous-waste bombs and other munitions on a beach in Guam that is sacred to its people.

At its core, this case is about whether the U.S. military can move forward with dangerous activities without following the federal law requiring an environmental review, which is designed to protect people, communities, and the environment.

Earthjustice attorneys will argue to the Court that it cannot. We represent Prutehi Guåhan, a community group in Guam fighting for their right to weigh in on decisions that affect their health and home.

What Are the Facts of the Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guåhan Supreme Court Case?

• A sensitive location: For years, the Air Force has been blowing up old bombs and toxic military waste on Guam’s Tarague Beach, an important cultural site that also sits above the island’s main source of drinking water. The explosions release toxic chemicals — like smoke, explosive material, and heavy metals — directly into the air and soil.
• Breaking the law: In 2021, the Air Force decided to continue these explosions, which required it to renew its permit for this destructive activity. A bedrock law called the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) required it to seek public input and consider less environmentally harmful options before it decided to continue this approach – but it did not.
• The court fight so far: Prutehi Guåhan is suing the Air Force and the U.S. Department of Defense for violating NEPA. The 9^th Circuit sided with our clients in 2025. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Legal Stakes of Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guåhan

• Federal laws are not ‘pick and choose’: The government is arguing that because it must follow one environmental law — specifically, one that provides parameters for storing and disposing of hazardous waste — it is free to ignore another federal environmental law, NEPA. One law does not negate the other, especially when NEPA requires its own individualized processes.
• The heart of the matter: The court’s ruling could affect whether and how the government conducts environmental reviews in situations with overlapping statutes. It could also influence when and how the public can challenge federal agencies’ environmental decisions in court.
• What NEPA requires: The law is clear. Federal agencies must study impacts, disclose risks, and consider public input before moving forward with projects that affect the environment.

What This Case Means for Guam

• Not a sacrifice zone: Our clients are fighting to ensure that the military takes a hard look at the irreversible consequences of its operations and respects the right of the people most affected to have their voices heard.
• What Guam residents say: “This case is about fairness, deliberation, and self-determination — and about making sure the Air Force listens to our community before key decisions are made and the harm is done,” said Monaeka Flores, the Executive Director of Prutehi Guåhan.