Brief as Amici Curiae of Jared Huffman, et al., Department of the Air Force, et al., v. Prutehi Guahan, No. 25-579
Filed Jul 27 2026
The Environmental Law and Community Engagement Clinic at UVA Law filed this amicus brief on behalf of Members of Congress, Jared Huffman (CA-02), Julia Brownley (CA-26), Debbie Dingell (MI-06), and Pablo Jose Hernandez (PR) in support of Respondents in a U.S. Supreme Court case affecting the future of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The case, Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan, considers whether the Air Force is obligated to conduct environmental reviews under NEPA prior to committing to one particular option for the destruction of expired munitions on the island of Guam. This amicus brief supports Respondent’s argument that prior to making “any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of Federal resources,” NEPA § 102, federal law requires the Air Force to evaluate alternatives identified in a report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The Air Force has countered that the “specific” provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) override the “general” requirements of NEPA. The Air Force thus claims that it does not have to comply with NEPA procedures prior to seeking a RCRA permit from Guam EPA. This amicus brief on behalf of Members of Congress makes two principal arguments to dispute the Air Force’s claims. First, the brief walks through the history of environmental statutes that were already on the books at the time that NEPA was enacted in 1969. It maintains that the presence of these early environmental programs confirm that Congress intended NEPA to operate alongside an existing body of environmental law—not to replace it, and not to be displaced by it—but to help coordinate it. Second, the brief observes that Congress knows how to craft a carveout from NEPA if it wants one. It goes on to identify ten current statutes in the United States Code with explicit NEPA exemptions, and pointedly notes that RCRA is not among them. A straightforward reading of the statutory text, therefore, confirms that RCRA supplements, but does not supplant, the mandatory procedures of NEPA.