# Supreme Court Weighs Guam Munitions Permit Review

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments over whether the Air Force must conduct environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when renewing a hazardous-waste permit governed by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for munitions detonation in Guam. The Ninth Circuit ruled for environmental group Prutehi Guåhan, and the Air Force is seeking reversal. The Court’s decision could affect how federal agencies handle environmental review when activities rely on permits issued under other authorities; no contract award or solicitation is identified.

- Defense and environmental-services contractors supporting federal facilities in Guam may face changes to permitting schedules, compliance work, and litigation exposure depending on the Court’s ruling.
- Contractors involved in munitions disposal, remediation, or environmental permitting should account for the unresolved NEPA-RCRA question when assessing project schedules and scope; the signals identify no specific procurement opportunity or deadline.
- Because the Court has heard arguments and a decision remains pending, agencies and contractors supporting similar permitted activities may benefit from tracking the ruling for its potential effect on environmental-review responsibilities.

**Jurisdictions:** federal
**Industries:** Defense & Military, Environment
**Topics:** Regulatory Compliance
**Published:** October 07, 2026

### Government Entities
- Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)
- United States Air Force (USAF)
- Guam Environmental Protection Agency (Guam EPA)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit)
- U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)

### Key Quotes
> I’m not seeing how it would make any sense to say that it’s not final, but then that NEPA still applies, which is a possible outcome here.
> — Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Supreme Court Justice

> Don’t we usually say, ‘If you can do both — if you can comply with both of Congress’ commands — you should do so?’
> — Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court

> I don’t think that this is going to open the floodgates to more attacks on permitting decisions.
> — Caroline Flynn, attorney representing Prutehi Guåhan

### Sources
- [Supreme Court hears arguments over World War II-era munition disposal in Guam – The Hill](https://thehill.com/video/supreme-court-hears-arguments-over-world-war-ii-era-munition-disposal-in-guam/12244926) - The Hill
- [Supreme Court weighs Air Force munitions in Guam](https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/6134193-supreme-court-air-force-munitions-guam-nepa-environmental-review) - The Hill