Blue Ocean Law urges U.S. Supreme Court to preserve vital environmental safeguards for Guam

Blue Ocean Law has filed an amicus curiae brief to the United States Supreme Court in support of Prutehi Guåhan in Department of the Air Force, et al. v. Prutehi Guåhan, a case concerning the Air Force’s continued open burning and open detonation of waste munitions at Tarague Beach.

The filing continues Blue Ocean Law’s longstanding work alongside Prutehi Guåhan and other community advocates confronting the environmental, cultural, and public-health consequences of U.S. military activity in Guam. Blue Ocean Law has previously represented Chamorro interests before United Nations human rights mechanisms, documenting human rights violations arising from the cumulative impacts of military expansion in Guam, as well as civil and political rights violations arising from Guam’s status as a non-self-governing territory.

“This case is about more than one permit or one military practice,” said Julian Aguon, founder of Blue Ocean Law and counsel of record. “It is about whether federal agencies can make decisions that directly affects Guam’s communities without first confronting their full effects—and without meaningfully hearing from the people who must live with them. In a place where federal power is immense but accountability is largely absent, environmental review is not bureaucratic excess. It is vital.”

Prutehi argues that the Air Force should have complied with NEPA before deciding to continue OB/OD on Tarague, while the Air Force argues that its NEPA obligations are displaced by Guam EPA’s permitting process under the national Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”). Blue Ocean Law’s brief advances two main arguments.

First, the National Environmental Policy Act has heightened importance in Guam. Guam is disproportionately burdened by U.S. military decisions. Over 25% of the island is occupied by the military and that presence shapes all aspects of life in Guam—affecting land, resources, culture, health, and livelihoods. Yet because Guam is an unincorporated territory, its people cannot vote for President, have no representation in the Senate, and only a non-voting delegate in the House. Likewise, Guam’s territorial government lacks the sovereign authority to regulate federal activity as a state can. In short, Guam’s territorial status forecloses the ordinary channels of political accountability. In this context, NEPA is often the only structured opportunity for the island community to participate in federal military decisions that directly impact their lives and their futures. The brief describes NEPA as a “lifeline” because it requires agencies to examine environmental consequences, consider reasonable alternatives, and hear public perspectives before committing to action. It shows that, through the NEPA process, communities can substantively affect agency-decision making based on both Guam’s lived experience and empirical research findings.

Second, Guam EPA’s permitting process under RCRA does not displace the Air Force’s obligations under NEPA. Blue Ocean Law’s brief explains that the two statutes are distinct but complementary. RCRA asks whether a proposed hazardous-waste facility satisfies substantive permitting standards. NEPA requires something different: agency self-scrutiny, consideration of broader environmental and cumulative effects, evaluation of reasonable alternatives, and meaningful public participation before a decision is made. The Air Force was required to conduct environmental review under NEPA before deciding to continue OB/OD and submitting its permit application, while Guam EPA’s RCRA review began only after that application was received. Treating the later RCRA permitting process as a substitute for NEPA would erase precisely the accountability Congress intended NEPA to provide.

Blue Ocean Law urges the Supreme Court to affirm the Ninth Circuit and preserve both statutes’ distinct protections.

“For years, Prutehi Guåhan has insisted, with clarity and courage, that Guam cannot be treated as a sacrifice zone,” says Autumn Bordner, a senior associate with Blue Ocean Law. “We are proud to stand with them again—this time before the highest court in the country—to defend the basic principle that those who wield extraordinary power must look before they leap, listen before they decide, and answer to the people and places they put at risk.”