US Supreme Court Weighs Case Over Air Force Bomb Detonations on Guam

The US Supreme Court has begun hearing arguments in a case that could decide whether the US Air Force may continue using a beach on Guam to detonate unexploded ordnance.

Wednesday's hearing stems from a complaint by Prutehi Guahan, a conservation group on Guam. The group argues that the long-term use of Tarague Beach for weapons disposal could harm the ecosystem, damage an important cultural and historical site, and threaten the island's water supply.

The case has drawn attention because it raises broader questions about the rights of residents in US territories, who cannot vote in presidential elections and have limited representation in the federal legislature.

Guam became a US territory in 1898, after the Spanish-American War. The island is also a key US military base in the Western Pacific, home to Andersen Air Force Base and Naval Base Guam.

The island's estimated population is about 170,000.

What does the lawsuit challenge?

The case before the Supreme Court centers on whether the US Air Force properly followed environmental procedures before seeking a new permit to continue disposing of and destroying dangerous weapons — including bombs, mines and missiles — at Tarague Beach.

The Air Force has used the beach for detonations since 1982 and applied to renew its permit in 2021. The Guam Environmental Protection Agency neither "denied nor approved" the permit, and the detonations have continued.

A central point in Prutehi Guahan's complaint is whether the Air Force complied with the law.

In seeking the permit, the Air Force invoked the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, which requires environmental regulators in US states and territories to oversee hazardous waste handling.

Prutehi Guahan also contends that the Air Force must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which requires federal agencies to conduct environmental impact assessments, including public consultation, before making major decisions.

What is the threat to Guam?

In court filings, Prutehi Guahan — which means Protect Guam in Chamorro — says the Air Force's weapons disposal area sits "on ancestral lands that the military took from local families after World War II."

The group adds that the beach is "adjacent to culturally significant fishing grounds — where local families depend for their livelihoods — and contains traditional medicinal gathering sites." It is one of the longest-inhabited areas in the region, with archaeological evidence dating to the 2nd millennium BC.

Prutehi Guahan also says the detonation site sits "above the aquifer that supplies drinking water to more than 80% of the island's population."

The court filings cite studies showing that weapons disposal and detonation can scatter metal fragments into the ocean and surrounding coral reefs, while releasing toxic chemicals.

What does the Air Force say?

Government lawyers maintain that the Air Force has complied with environmental assessment procedures under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and argue that this process "replaces" the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.

They also argue that because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Guam has not issued a final decision on the 2021 permit, Prutehi Guahan's complaint is premature.

A federal district judge initially sided with the Air Force and dismissed the lawsuit after Prutehi Guahan filed its complaint in January 2022. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals — the largest federal court in the US — later ruled the case could proceed.

The Air Force then appealed to the US Supreme Court.

Why does the case matter?

Prutehi Guahan stresses the importance of public feedback, which is a mandatory requirement in environmental assessments under the National Environmental Policy Act.

In its filings, the group cites a history of US government decisions about Guam made without input from residents, along with a legacy of lasting environmental damage. This includes two Superfund sites — areas of severe contamination requiring cleanup — linked to hazardous waste dumping by the Navy and Air Force.

"Military decisions made nearly a century ago caused damage that still requires extensive and costly cleanup," the filing states. "And more recent military decisions have compounded the damage Guam is enduring."

Writing for SCOTUSblog, which tracks the US Supreme Court, Right to Democracy co-founders Neil Weare and Adi Martinez Roman said the case highlights the "asymmetrical political relationship" between residents of US territories and the federal government.

"The people of Guam have very little power or ability to influence federal decisions that affect their lives — which makes community consultation through federal laws like NEPA all the more important," they wrote.