The Supreme Court’s Relist Watch provides a unique glimpse into two divergent areas of significant legal dispute: environmental impact assessments on hazardous munitions disposal and the contentious debate over firearm regulations. These cases represent a broader ongoing discourse about federal and state interactions and the constitutional interpretation surrounding individual rights.
In Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan, the U.S. Air Force is up against the Guam-based environmental advocacy group Prutehi Guahan (meaning “protect Guam” in Chamorro). Since 1982, the Air Force has disposed of hazardous munitions by either burning or detonating them on a restricted-access beach in northeast Guam. The legal contention arises from the Air Force’s routine application, every three years, to the Guam’s territorial Environmental Protection Agency for a permit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, which governs hazardous waste disposal. Prutehi Guahan argues that the Air Force’s 2021 permit renewal application failed to meet procedural requisites, a view which found favor with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The decision requires the Air Force to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 before proceeding. However, the United States has now appealed for higher review, citing potential bureaucratic urgencies stemming from this interpretation.
The second tier of cases inclines towards the ever-pertinent Second Amendment rights. Petitions such as National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont and Grant v. Higgins challenge Connecticut’s legislation prohibiting “assault weapons,” notably AR-15-style rifles, and larger-capacity magazines post-Sandy Hook. The arguments stem from the understanding whether the Second Amendment encompasses semiautomatic rifles in common use for lawful purposes. Though earlier rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld the state’s ban citing historical precedence of regulating especially dangerous weapons, the petitioners seek a revisitation of related Supreme Court precedents. The set of issues resonates with prior denials for similar petitions, bringing to focus the court’s unpredictability over such constitutional interpretations.
These cases vividly encapsulate the continuous tug-of-war between state rights and federal oversight, and the evolving tensions between constitutional interpretations vis-a-vis weaponry amidst evolving public policy challenges. The Supreme Court’s decisions on these matters could indeed pave pathways for future adjudications and legislative directions. For further analysis, visit the complete SCOTUSblog article.