The U.S. Supreme Court’s upcoming term will include several environmental cases, one of which involves an appeal about whether the U.S. Air Force can continue conducting military activities over a historic beach in Guam. This case raises questions about how the government balances national security with the preservation of culturally and environmentally significant areas. The Supreme Court has historically been cautious about environmental regulations, often scrutinizing the scope and authority of federal environmental laws. Richard Hasen, a professor at the UCLA School of Law, recently discussed the implications of recent executive orders related to mail-in voting. These orders, issued by the Trump administration, aimed to tighten rules around mail-in ballots, citing concerns about election security. Hasen emphasized that while these changes might affect how elections are conducted, he advised voters to consider in-person voting options as a way to ensure their votes are counted accurately. Sam Sankar, an attorney with Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law organization, highlighted the Supreme Court’s long-standing skepticism toward environmental regulations. He noted that the Court has often ruled against expansive interpretations of federal environmental laws, which can limit the ability of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce regulations. Sankar is following two key environmental cases that are expected to be heard early in the Supreme Court’s new term. These cases could have far-reaching implications for environmental policy in the United States. They may influence how environmental laws are interpreted and applied in the future, potentially affecting everything from pollution control to the protection of natural and cultural landmarks. As the Supreme Court prepares to hear these cases, legal experts and environmental advocates are closely watching the developments.