Independent newsroom

Thursday, October 8, 2026

The File

Every claim traces to a primary source. Uncertainty is labeled. Corrections are public.

Supreme Court · Thursday, October 8, 2026

Justices weigh when a Guam group can sue over the Air Force's beach detonations

The File desk · Oct 8, 2026, 10:49 AM UTC

Status

Confirmed from the official argument transcript in Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan, No. 25-579, argued Oct. 7, 2026. The transcript is marked official and subject to final review. This story does not predict the ruling.

  • Confirmed

    The Court heard argument Wednesday. Sopan Joshi argued for the Air Force. Caroline A. Flynn argued for Prutehi Guahan. Argument ran from 10:04 a.m. to 11:20 a.m.

  • Confirmed

    The government said a permit application is not final agency action. The Guam group said the Air Force had to follow the

    before choosing to keep detonating munitions on the beach.

For decades the Air Force has blown up old and waste munitions in the open on Tarague Beach at Andersen Air Force Base in Guam. To keep doing it, the Air Force applied to Guam's environmental agency to renew a hazardous-waste permit. A local group, Prutehi Guahan, says the Air Force first had to do a full federal environmental review under the

. On Wednesday the government told the Supreme Court that a permit application is not a final step people can sue over yet under the . Chief Justice Roberts pressed back, asking whether the government was saying the Air Force's choice is never final and therefore never reviewable.

The case is Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan, No. 25-579. Sopan Joshi, an assistant to the solicitor general, argued for the Air Force. Caroline A. Flynn argued for Prutehi Guahan. Argument began at 10:04 a.m. and was submitted at 11:20 a.m. The docket lists the case as argued on Oct. 7.

Joshi told the justices: “A permit application is not final agency action. It's a request to someone else to take action.” He also argued that the hazardous-waste law, the

, already covers the same ground as the .

Flynn said the Air Force was required to comply with the

before choosing to continue open detonation on Tarague Beach. She said the application kept the detonations going past September 2021, when they otherwise would have ceased.

Justice Sotomayor asked how the

and the are irreconcilably conflicting. Justice Kagan asked whether any project that needs outside approvals is never final. Justice Kavanaugh pointed to the Environmental Protection Agency's interpretation since 1980 that the does not apply in a circumstance. Justice Thomas called it an odd case because the Air Force is the one asking permission. Justice Barrett asked whether Guam's own agency would have to do the review.

The Court has not ruled. This story does not say which way it will go.

What is still unknown or disputed

Primary sources

Every claim in this story is drawn from the documents below. If a fetch failed, that is recorded on the card.

  1. Source 1

    Transcript of oral argument, Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan, No. 25-579

    Supreme Court of the United States · October 7, 2026

    A permit application is not final agency action. It's a request to someone else to take action.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2026/25-579_g31h.pdf

  2. Source 2

    Argument transcripts, October Term 2026

    Supreme Court of the United States · October 7, 2026

    The 2026 transcript list now includes Nos. 25-170, 25-498, 25-579, and 25-735.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2026

  3. Source 3

    Docket, No. 25-579

    Supreme Court of the United States · October 7, 2026

    Argued. For petitioners: Sopan Joshi, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Caroline A. Flynn, Washington, D. C.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-579.html