最高法院周三审理了一起案件，争议焦点在于空军在关岛进行弹药引爆前是否需要开展环境评估。环保组织“普鲁特希·瓜汉”（Prutehi Guåhan）提起诉讼称，向关岛环境保护署提交许可证续期申请的决定本身即构成一项机构行为，从而触发了环境评估程序。该组织指出，提交续期申请这一举动实际上自动允许了空军继续依据原有许可证开展活动。
The Supreme Court on Wednesday wrestled with a case about whether the Air Force needs to conduct environmental review before its munitions detonations in Guam. An environmental group, Prutehi Guåhan, has sued, saying that the decision to file a permit renewal application with the Guam Environmental Protection Agency constitutes an agency action that triggered environmental review, noting that the move to submit the renewal application automatically allowed the Air Force to continue operating under the prior permit.
第九巡回上诉法院支持了“普鲁特希·瓜汉”的主张。然而，空军则请求法院推翻该判决。空军辩称，提交许可证申请的决定并非最终机构行为，因此不受司法审查；此外，由于该申请是依据国家危险废物法提出的，因此无需根据另一项名为《国家环境政策法》（NEPA）的独立法律进行环境评估。《国家环境政策法》要求政府在实施重大联邦行动前，必须评估其对环境可能造成的影响。
The Ninth Circuit court of appeals agreed with Prutehi Guåhan. The Air Force, however, has asked the court to overturn that decision. It argues both that a decision to file a permit application is not a final agency action subject to judicial review and that since it is seeking the permit under the nation’s hazardous waste law, it does not have to conduct an environmental review under a separate statute known as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requires the government to consider environmental consequences of major federal actions before they are carried out.
此案可能对更广泛的问题产生影响：包括军方在内的美国政府是否需要对某些由独立机构（如关岛环境保护署）负责评估的行动进行环境审查。大法官们向空军和“普鲁特希·瓜汉”提出了尖锐的问题，并未明确表明将作何裁决。不过，在上一个司法年度的一起案件中，最高法院已经缩小了《国家环境政策法》所涵盖的环境评估范围，其保守派大法官可能不愿进一步扩大该环境法规的管辖权。
The case could have broader implications for whether the U.S. government, including the military, needs to conduct environmental reviews of certain actions that are assessed by a separate authority such as the Guam EPA. The justices asked tough questions of both the Air Force and Prutehi Guåhan, not giving a clear indication of which way they would rule. However, in a case last term, the court narrowed the scope of environmental reviews under NEPA, and its conservative justices may not want to expand the jurisdiction of the environmental statute.
大法官们质疑空军提出的逻辑——即许可证续期申请并非机构行为——并追问：反对者是否永远无法提起诉讼以阻止此类行为？
The justices questioned the Air Force’s logic that the application to renew its detonation permit is not an agency action, asking whether opponents could ever sue to stop it.
“所以你的意思是，空军的决定根本不存在可以被质疑的节点，因为即使关岛方面同意说：‘好的，我们承认这一点’，你也认为他们不必继续推进。他们随时可以改变主意，可以说：‘哦，好的，现在我们打算采取不同的做法。’也就是说，空军的行动永远不是最终的，因此也永远无法接受审查，”首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨说道。
"So you're saying that there's no point at which the Air Force's decision can be challenged because even if Guam goes ahead and says, 'OK, you know, granted,' you're saying you don't have to go forward with it. You could always change your mind. You could say, 'Oh, OK, now we're going to do something different.'
“我不明白，如果认为这一决定并非最终决定，但《国家环境政策法》（NEPA）仍然适用，这又怎么讲得通呢？而这或许正是本案可能出现的结果，”布雷特·卡瓦诺大法官补充道。然而，大法官们还向该环保组织提问：认定该申请是一项可以受到最终挑战的行动，是否可能对其他许可申请产生更广泛的影响。“如果我们认定这是联邦机构的最终决定，你认为这在更常见的情况下会产生什么影响？也就是说，当政府本身是寻求许可的受规制实体，需要向美国环保署或其他类似机构，比如交通委员会等提出申请时，这会产生重大影响吗？还是不会？”
The Air Force's action is never final and therefore never reviewable,” said Chief Justice John Roberts. “I'm not seeing how it would make any sense to say that it's not final, but then that NEPA still applies, which is a possible outcome here,” added Justice Brett Kavanaugh. However, the justices also questioned the environmental organization about whether deciding that the application is a final challengeable action could have broader implications for permit applications. “If we say that this is final agency action, what ramifications do you think this would have in the more normal situation where, to the extent the government is the one who's the regulated entity seeking a permit, appearing before EPA or some other like you know service transportation board or something like that, would this have a big impact or no?” asked Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
艾米·科尼·巴雷特大法官问道。“我认为这并不会导致针对许可决定的攻击性诉讼激增，”代表普鲁特希·关岛组织出庭的律师卡罗琳·弗林回应道。大法官们还就双方提出的关键问题展开质询：空军依据《资源保护与恢复法》（该法案规范危险废物的处置）申请许可这一事实，是否必然排除了NEPA的审查程序？他们还向政府询问了NEPA中的一项条款，即除非审查会与其他法律冲突，否则必须完成审查。
“I don't think that this is going to open the floodgates to more attacks on permitting decisions,” responded attorney Caroline Flynn, who represented Prutehi Guåhan. The justices also asked tough questions of both sides on whether the fact that the Air Force was seeking a permit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which governs hazardous waste disposal, necessarily excluded NEPA review. They asked the government about provisions in NEPA that say a review has to be completed unless the review would conflict with another law.
“该条款并未明确排除这种情况，”司法部律师索潘·乔希对法庭表示。“那么，是间接排除的吗？”尼尔·戈萨奇大法官问道。“它又是如何被间接排除的？”“根据‘特殊优于一般’的法律解释原则。”
“It doesn't say expressly excluded,” Justice Department lawyer Sopan Joshi told the court. “So it’s implicitly excluded?” asked Justice Neil Gorsuch. “How is it implicitly excluded?”“Under the specific-general canon. That is a well-known doctrine of law in which a more specific statute ...,” Joshi replied.
“这是一个众所周知的法律原则，即更具体的法律……”乔希回答道。“好的，但如果我不同意你的看法呢？”戈萨奇问道。“那我们就输了，”乔希说。他们随后就同一问题向弗林提问。“您认为我们的判例是否支持这样一种观点：一部针对特定问题作出非常详尽规定的较新法律，只有在同时遵守两部法律完全不可能时，才能取代一部涵盖范围更广的旧法律？”大法官塞缪尔·阿利托问道。
“OK, but if I disagree with you about that?” asked Gorsuch. “Then we lose,” said Joshi. They questioned Flynn on the same issue. “Do you think our case law supports the proposition that a newer statute that deals very extensively with a specific problem cannot displace an older statute that deals with a much broader range of activities only if it is impossible to comply with both of those statutes?” asked Justice Samuel Alito.
“是的。我认为本法院的判例一直要求存在冲突，”弗林回应道。“您认为协调义务与‘必须绝对不可能同时遵守两部法律’这一要求是否一致？”阿利托进一步追问。扎克·申菲尔德对此亦有贡献。
“I do. I think this court's cases have required a conflict,” Flynn responded. “Do you think that the duty to harmonize is consistent with the requirement that it must be absolutely impossible to comply with both?”Alito pressed. Zach Schonfeld contributed.