USAF v. Guahan: OSG Seeks Review in APA Challenge to Disposal of Hazardous Waste Munitions in Guam
Be honest—this is ridiculous.
Nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting natural and cultural resources in Guam brought action against Air Force, Department of Defense and their respective Secretaries, alleging failure to comply with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) before submitting Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit renewal application to Guam Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for disposal of hazardous waste munitions on beach through open burning/open detonation operations. The District Court of Guam granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing, ripeness, and failure to state a claim. Organization appealed.
CA9 (Berzon, Miller; VanDyke (dis.)), reversed, holding that:
organization alleged its members sustained requisite concrete "injuries-in-fact" for Article III standing to bring action;
members’ purported environmental injuries were "fairly traceable" to Air Force’s decision to conduct operations without necessary environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS), as required for Article III standing;
Air Force’s application constituted "final agency action" subject to judicial review under Administrative Procedure Act (APA);
Air Force’s application constituted final agency action "ripe" for judicial review under APA; and
Air Force was not exempt from complying with NEPA’s procedural requirements before submitting application.
The Air Force filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on November 14, 2025. The questions presented are:
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.
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.
Be honest—this is ridiculous.
Nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting natural and cultural resources in Guam brought action against Air Force, Department of Defense and their respective Secretaries, alleging failure to comply with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) before submitting Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit renewal application to Guam Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for disposal of hazardous waste munitions on beach through open burning/open detonation operations. The District Court of Guam granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing, ripeness, and failure to state a claim. Organization appealed.
CA9 (Berzon, Miller; VanDyke (dis.)), reversed, holding that:
organization alleged its members sustained requisite concrete "injuries-in-fact" for Article III standing to bring action;
members’ purported environmental injuries were "fairly traceable" to Air Force’s decision to conduct operations without necessary environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS), as required for Article III standing;
Air Force’s application constituted "final agency action" subject to judicial review under Administrative Procedure Act (APA);
Air Force’s application constituted final agency action "ripe" for judicial review under APA; and
Air Force was not exempt from complying with NEPA’s procedural requirements before submitting application.
The Air Force filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on November 14, 2025. The questions presented are:
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.
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.
USAF v. Guahan: OSG Seeks Review in APA Challenge to Disposal of Hazardous Waste Munitions in Guam
Be honest—this is ridiculous.
Nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting natural and cultural resources in Guam brought action against Air Force, Department of Defense and their respective Secretaries, alleging failure to comply with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) before submitting Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit renewal application to Guam Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for disposal of hazardous waste munitions on beach through open burning/open detonation operations. The District Court of Guam granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing, ripeness, and failure to state a claim. Organization appealed.
CA9 (Berzon, Miller; VanDyke (dis.)), reversed, holding that:
organization alleged its members sustained requisite concrete "injuries-in-fact" for Article III standing to bring action;
members’ purported environmental injuries were "fairly traceable" to Air Force’s decision to conduct operations without necessary environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS), as required for Article III standing;
Air Force’s application constituted "final agency action" subject to judicial review under Administrative Procedure Act (APA);
Air Force’s application constituted final agency action "ripe" for judicial review under APA; and
Air Force was not exempt from complying with NEPA’s procedural requirements before submitting application.
The Air Force filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on November 14, 2025. The questions presented are:
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.
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.
0 Comments
0 Shares
209 Views
0 Reviews
