The case before the high court hinges on whether the US Air Force followed proper environmental procedures when it applied for a new permit to continue disposing of and destroying hazardous munitions—including bombs, landmines, and missiles—at Tarague Beach. The Air Force has used the beach for these detonations since 1982 and sought a renewal in 2021. Guam's Environmental Protection Agency did not deny or approve the permit, and detonations have continued.
At the centre of Prutehi Guahan's challenge is whether the Air Force complied with the law. In applying for the permit, the Air Force followed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, which requires environmental regulators in US states and territories to regulate hazardous waste disposal. However, Prutehi Guahan maintains the Air Force must also adhere to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which requires federal agencies to conduct environmental impact assessments and seek community input before undertaking major decisions.
In court filings, Prutehi Guahan—which means "Protect Guam" in the Chamorro language—said the disposal range is located on ancestral land that the military seized from local families after World War II. The group added that the beach is adjacent to culturally significant fishing locations upon which local families depend for sustenance and contains sites for collecting traditional medicines. It noted that the area is one of the oldest occupied sites in the region, with archaeological evidence dating back to the 2nd millennium BC.
Guam became a US territory in 1898 after the Spanish-American War and has served as a key military hub in the western Pacific, hosting Andersen Air Force Base and US Naval Base Guam. The island has an estimated population of about 170,000. The case has drawn attention to the limited rights of US territory residents, who cannot vote in presidential elections and have only non-voting representation in the US Congress.