US Supreme Court hears challenge to air force UXO detonations in Guam

SaveSharefacebookxwhatsapp-strokecopylinkUS aircraft at Andersen Air Force Base in Guam [US Air Force/Handout via Reuters]By Joseph StepanskyPublished On 7 Oct 20267 Oct 2026The United States Supreme Court has begun hearing arguments in a case that could determine whether the US air force can continue to use a beach in Guam to detonate unexploded ordnance.Wednesday’s hearing stems from a challenge by a Guam conservation group, Prutehi Guahan, which argues that the longstanding use of Tarague Beach to dispose of munitions may harm the ecosystem, damage an important cultural and historical site, and threaten the island’s water resources.Recommended Stories list of 3 itemslist 1 of 3USS Lincoln crisis: How it compares to past aircraft carrier deploymentslist 2 of 3US delivers F-16V fighter jets to Taiwan as island eyes threat from Chinalist 3 of 3Who is Jason Palmer, the only Democrat to beat Joe Biden on Super Tuesday?end of listThe case has gained attention for raising broader questions over the rights of residents of US territories, who cannot vote in presidential elections and have limited representation in the US legislature.Guam became a US territory in 1898, in the wake of the Spanish-American Civil War. It has also served as a key US military hub in the western Pacific, hosting both Andersen Air Force Base and US Naval Base Guam.The island has an estimated population of about 170,000.Here’s what to know about the case:What’s being challenged?The case before the Supreme Court hinges on whether the US air force followed proper environmental procedures before applying for a new permit to continue to dispose of and destroy hazardous munitions – including bombs, landmines and missiles – at Tarague Beach.The air force has used the beach for the detonations since 1982 and applied for a permit to continue in 2021. Guam’s Environmental Protection Agency did not “deny or approve” the permit, and detonations have continued. At the centre of Prutehi Guahan’s challenge is whether the air force followed the law.In applying for the permit, the air force adhered to the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which requires environmental regulators in US states and territories to regulate hazardous waste disposal.Prutehi Guahan has also maintained that the air force must adhere to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which requires federal agencies to conduct environmental impact assessments, including receiving community input, before undertaking major decisions.What is the threat to Guam?In court filings, Prutehi Guahan, which means Protect Guam in the Chamorro language, said the air force disposal range is located “on ancestral land that the military seized from local families after World War II”.It added the beach is “adjacent to culturally significant fishing locations – upon which local families depend for sustenance – and contains sites for collecting traditional medicines”. The area is one of the oldest occupied sites in the region, with archaeological evidence dating back to the 2nd millennium BC, Prutehi Guahan noted. Prutehi Guahan also said the detonation site sits “above an aquifer that provides drinking water to over 80% of the island’s population”.The court filing detailed studies that found munition disposal and detonation can send fragments into the surrounding ocean and reef, while releasing toxic chemicals.What has the air force said?Government lawyers have maintained that the air force followed environmental review procedures under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, arguing the process “displaces” any requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act.They have further argued that, because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Guam has not issued a final determination on the 2021 permit, the challenge from Prutehi Guahan was premature.A US district judge initially sided with the air force and threw out the case after Prutehi Guahan filed its challenge in January 2022. The US Court of Appeals’ Ninth Circuit, the country’s largest federal court, later determined the case could move forward.The air force then appealed to the US Supreme Court.Why is the case significant?Prutehi Guahan has underscored the significance of public feedback, which is required as part of environmental assessments under the National Environmental Policy Act.In its filing, it pointed to a history of US government decisions about Guam made without input from residents, as well as a legacy of environmental damage. That includes two designated heavily polluted Superfund cleanup sites linked to navy and air force hazardous waste dumping. “Decisions the military made nearly a century ago caused damage that still requires extensive and expensive cleanup,” the filing said. “And military decisions made more recently compound the damage Guam already bears”.Writing for the SCOTUSblog which covers the US Supreme Court, Right to Democracy co-founders Neil Weare and Adi Martinez Roman said the case underscores the “unbalanced political relationship” between residents of US territories and the federal government.“The people of Guam have little power or agency to influence federal decisions that impact their lives – which makes community consultation through federal laws like NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] all the more important,” they wrote.