A lawsuit brought against the U.S. Air Force has given the island of Guam its day in court.
The territory was represented by the environmental law nonprofit organization Earthjustice, which argued before the Supreme Court against a move by the U.S. Air Force that has been described as sidestepping the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA.
The case involves the detonation of explosives on Tarague Beach, a pristine beach on the northern end of the island that’s located within Andersen Air Force Base.
The U.S. military controls roughly a third of the island, which is a U.S. unincorporated territory.
To learn more about the context of the case, HPR spoke with Earthjustice’s Deputy Managing Attorney, David Henkin. He argued the case for the group Prutehi Guåhan, which means “Protect Guam.”
Supreme Court justices are expected to issue their ruling by next summer.
Interview Highlights
On the importance of protecting Tarague Beach
DAVID HENKIN: There are so many reasons why Tarague Beach is such an inappropriate place to dispose of hazardous waste munition. It overlays the sole source aquifer for the island of Guam. They blow up the bombs in the bare sand right over a portion of that aquifer. There are endangered sea turtles that nest on the beach just offshore. … And so all of the contaminants from the bombs that are blown up go out into the water. And the land on which this is taking place was seized and taken from the local families immediately after World War II, and they would like to get their land back, and they would like to get it back uncontaminated. So, the whole thrust of our case is that every three years the Air Force needs to make a decision about how it's going to dispose of bombs and other munitions that are past their best-by date. ... There are certainly better places to do it than on this culturally and environmentally sensitive beach.
On Guam and Hawaiʻi’s military connection
HENKIN: This should really resonate for people in Hawaiʻi as we face questions about the military presence on our land. And whether you're thinking about Red Hill or the renewal of the state leases on a variety of military parcels that are coming up in 2029, or a case that I've been working on personally for over 30 years at Mākua Military Reservation, there's very similar situation where the Army had never done an environmental review for live-fire training at Mākua. They'd always maintained that it was an irreplaceable live-fire training area, and we finally were able to force them to comply. … So that's the power of the National Environmental Policy Act to hold our federal agencies accountable and make them take a hard look at what they're doing and how they could do it better.
On arguing before the Supreme Court
HENKIN: We were heartened to see that many of the justices had deep, deep concerns about the position that the government was taking, that the Air Force's failure to comply with NEPA would never come before the court for review. … So it's impossible from the questioning to predict exactly how the court is going to come down, but the most extreme positions taken by the United States were met with a lot of appropriate skepticism from the justices, and that was extremely heartening.
This story aired on The Conversation on Oct. 9, 2026. The Conversation airs weekdays at 11 a.m. Jinwook Lee adapted this story for the web.
