⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Supreme Court considers a challenge to the Air Force's disposal of waste explosives on a beach in northern Guam. At Andersen Air Force Base, the military destroys unwanted munitions by detonating them outdoors. A local conservation group fears harm to the island's water, wildlife, and ancestral lands. In two-thousand-twenty-one, the Air Force applied to Guam's environmental agency to renew its hazardous-waste permit. The renewal remains pending, while the old permit stays in force and the detonations continue. The group sued, arguing that the Air Force should have conducted a federal environmental review before applying. It relies on the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, which calls for environmental review before major federal actions. The Air Force answers that the hazardous-waste permitting process under another law, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA, already supplies the necessary environmental review. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, allowing it to proceed. Now the justices will consider whether submitting a permit application is a final agency action that a court can review, and whether the Air Force must undertake a separate NEPA review. Ultra vires means beyond legal authority. This narrow form of court review concerns an agency plainly defying a clear statutory command, not ordinary legal error. Sopan Joshi, an attorney in the Solicitor General's office, will speak for the Air Force. He will argue that the application is an unfinished request to another regulator, not a final decision, and that the waste-permitting law makes an additional NEPA review unnecessary.

Department of Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan (No. 25-579) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued October 7, 2026.