<p>Automated environmental enforcement (AEE), an emerging paradigm in environmental regulation, is currently highly contested. With the development of automated technology, some researchers speak enthusiastically of the birth of the ‘Automated Administrative State’. However, during its operational process, the constitutional interpretation risks posed by AEE’s algorithmic decisions—as well as the related issues of constitutional review—have rarely been discussed at a theoretical level. This article, therefore, makes an important contribution by proposing a theoretical perspective on constitutional risk review and further developing a layered framework for the use of AEE as a tool within environmental governance. It critically analyzes three core constitutional interpretation risks associated with automated enforcement. As a contribution to the field of environmental enforcement, a new area of study—automated environmental enforcement—is proposed, defined, and constructed, with particular attention to the challenges posed by algorithmic decision-making and enforcement authorization. The increasing use of automated enforcement may undermine citizens’ fundamental rights by embedding automation bias, privacy breaches, and procedural opacity deep within the governmental enforcement system. Accordingly, the article explores the relationship between constitutional review and automated enforcement, and examines how the application of constitutional core principles in AEE can either support or hinder the operation of the rule of law. It concludes that AEE should place greater emphasis on: recalibrating enforcement objectives to align with the constitutional principle of fundamental rights entrenchment; defining automated administrative penalties in accordance with the principle of proportionality; and establishing enforcement procedures rooted in the principle of due process.</p>