The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) enforcement program has long been the backbone of environmental enforcement in the United States. That program may now be bound for dramatic change. This Article analyzes the threats posed to the Agency’s program by the U.S. Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, in which three constitutional questions presented cut to the core of administrative enforcement.

Supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) have received a growing amount of attention in recent years, from the Donald Trump Administration banning their use in settlements, to regulation and guidance from the Joseph Biden Administration reversing the ban, to legislative proposals prohibiting them altogether. This Article examines SEPs’ legality under existing law, focusing on claims that they violate the Miscellaneous Receipts Act and the Antideficiency Act. It begins with a brief history of SEPs’ policy evolution and the limitations on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s and U.S.

On January 17, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce.

Since passage of the early natural resource protection laws and regulations in the United States decades ago, legal, technical, and economic practitioners have been challenged with understanding the ever-changing and ever-evolving environmental law and policy landscape. Riveting changes have advanced the position of natural resources and related matters of conservation and biodiversity across domestic and international agendas, in corporate, government, and public interest agendas, and in the lives of everyday citizens.

The United States has historically valued free access to most public lands. But federal land management agencies also rely on users’ fee dollars to support critical operations. This tension between “free access” and “user pays” has been an important feature of public land law since the late 1800s. The primary statute at issue is the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA), which authorizes fees at some sites while mandating free access at others.