Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan (25-579)
- Term
- OT 2026
- Certiorari granted
- 2026-03-09
- Court below
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Argued
- 2026-10-07
The case in brief
Facts
Since the early 1980s, the Air Force has run a facility at Andersen Air Force Base on Guam that destroys waste military munitions by burning or blowing them up in the open, under a permit required by a federal hazardous-waste law called RCRA. In May 2021, the Air Force asked Guam's environmental agency (Guam EPA) to renew that permit; Guam EPA has not made a final decision, so the old permit stays in effect. In 2022, Prutehi Guahan, a nonprofit group, sued, claiming the Air Force broke another law, NEPA, by applying without first preparing a formal environmental study. The district court dismissed the case, but a divided Ninth Circuit panel reversed, ruling that the application could be challenged in court now and that RCRA does not replace NEPA's review; Judge VanDyke dissented. The government asked the Supreme Court to step in, arguing that the ruling misapplied the Court's past decisions and conflicts with other appeals courts.
Question
Is the Air Force's application to renew a hazardous-waste permit a "final agency action" (a completed government decision) that courts can review right away, and did the Air Force have to do a NEPA environmental review before submitting it, given that RCRA has its own environmental-review process?
Question Presented
1. Whether the federal government's submission to a state or territorial regulator of an application to renew a RCRA permit is "final agency action" that is immediately reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 704.
2. Whether the federal government must comply with the general environmental-review procedures of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., before submitting a permit-renewal application under RCRA, which sets forth its own specific procedures to review environmental impacts in the context of hazardous-waste treatment.
Model prediction
Department of the Air Force 5-4 (53% confidence, raw). Calibrated to the historical base rate: Department of the Air Force 62%.
Case preview
Whether the Air Force's application to Guam's environmental regulator to renew a hazardous-waste permit is a final agency action that courts can review now, and whether the Air Force had to conduct a NEPA environmental review before submitting it.
Department of the Air Force
- The petitioner argues that the renewal application does not mark the consummation of the Air Force's decisionmaking. It only began an iterative process with Guam EPA, including public comment, that could require changes, much like a notice of proposed rulemaking.
- The petitioner argues that the application has no direct and appreciable legal consequences because it asks Guam EPA to decide rights and obligations rather than deciding them itself, like other agency requests or recommendations this Court has held nonfinal.
- The petitioner argues that the automatic extension of the existing permit pending Guam EPA's ruling does not create finality. Any resulting rights stem from the earlier permit, and no court has treated such tolling as making a renewal application final.
- The petitioner argues that RCRA's specific and comprehensive permitting requirements, including public comment and environmental analysis before a permit issues, are the functional equivalent of NEPA and therefore displace NEPA's more general procedures.
- The petitioner argues that longstanding EPA regulations exempt RCRA permitting from NEPA and that Congress has repeatedly amended RCRA without disapproving them. It adds that nothing supports distinguishing applicant agencies like the Air Force from EPA as permitting agency.
Prutehi Guahan
- The respondent argues that NEPA's text permits displacement only when another statute expressly says so or clearly and fundamentally conflicts with NEPA. The respondent contends neither condition applies to RCRA, and the two processes are complementary.
- The respondent argues that the petitioners' proposed 'functional equivalence' exception contradicts NEPA's text and the strong presumption against implied repeals. The respondent notes that Congress has created express NEPA exclusions for some environmental laws but not for RCRA, and that lower-court equivalence cases never applied the exception to a non-regulator agency.
- The respondent argues that even under a functional-equivalence test, RCRA permitting does not satisfy NEPA's hard-look requirement. The respondent says RCRA operates at a different time and omits considerations such as alternative locations for open detonation.
- The respondent argues that the Air Force's decision to continue open detonation at Tarague Beach is the consummation of its decisionmaking and is being implemented on the ground. The respondent contends the possibility that Guam EPA could deny a permit does not make the decision tentative, citing Sackett and Biden v. Texas.
- The respondent argues that the application carried concrete legal consequences because it triggered an extension of the prior permit, authorizing years of continued operations. It adds that the application's commitments will bind the Air Force once approved.
The United States: The United States is the petitioner here, appearing through the Air Force. It argues that the permit-renewal application is not final agency action and that RCRA's specific permitting procedures displace NEPA's general environmental-review requirements.
How the case got here
Prutehi Guahan, a Guam nonprofit, sued the Departments and Secretaries of the Air Force and of War in 2022, alleging that the Air Force violated NEPA by submitting its May 2021 application to Guam EPA for renewal of a RCRA permit for open burning/open detonation of waste munitions at Andersen Air Force Base without first preparing an EA or EIS. The district court dismissed the suit, holding that the application was not final agency action under the APA and, alternatively, that RCRA's specific provisions preclude application of NEPA in this context. A divided Ninth Circuit panel reversed and remanded, holding that the application was final agency action and that RCRA review does not displace NEPA; Judge VanDyke dissented. The court of appeals then denied rehearing en banc over Judge VanDyke's dissent, and the government petitioned for certiorari, contending that the panel misapplied this Court's precedent and conflicts with other circuits.
- 2021-05 — Guam Environmental Protection Agency: Air Force applied to renew RCRA permit for OB/OD waste-treatment facility at Andersen Air Force Base
- 2021-10 — Guam Environmental Protection Agency: Guam EPA informed Air Force it had not yet reached a final decision on the renewal application after draft permit, comment period and public hearing. No final decision; prior permit continues in force
- 2022 — United States District Court: Complaint filed alleging NEPA violation in submitting RCRA permit-renewal application
- Date not stated — United States District Court: Motion to dismiss granted (no final agency action; alternatively, RCRA precludes NEPA application) (2022 WL 5246740). Government won
- 2025-02-13 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Divided panel reversed and remanded (128 F.4th 1089). Prutehi Guahan won
- 2025-07-17 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Petition for rehearing en banc denied. Rehearing denied, over Judge VanDyke's dissent
- 2025-11-14 — Supreme Court of the United States: Petition for certiorari filed
- 2026-01-16 — Supreme Court of the United States: Brief in opposition filed
- 2026-03-09 — Supreme Court of the United States: Certiorari granted
- 2026-08-04 — Supreme Court of the United States: Set for argument on Wednesday, October 7, 2026.
- 2026-10-07 — Supreme Court of the United States: Argued
In the news
Interactive oral-argument transcript · Supreme Court docket · All tracked cases
This static summary is shown when JavaScript is disabled. The full interactive analysis loads above.