Jeannie Epper had at least 100 screen roles, maybe even 150 — no one is quite sure. But because she was a stunt double, galloping on horseback, crashing cars and kicking down doors for the stars of films and television shows, hers was not a household name.

In her heyday, however, Ms. Epper was ubiquitous. She hurtled through the air most weeks as Lynda Carter’s stunt double on the hit television series “Wonder Woman” and mimed Ms. Carter’s leggy lope. She tumbled through a scrum of mud and rocks as Kathleen Turner’s double in the 1984 comedy-adventure film “Romancing the Stone,” which also starred Michael Douglas. She threw punches for Linda Evans in one of her many ballyhooed cat fights with Joan Collins on the frothy, long-running 1980s nighttime soap opera “Dynasty.”

And, in what she often said was her favorite stunt — or gag, to use the industry term — Ms. Epper skidded a Corvette into a 180-degree turn as Shirley MacLaine’s character in “Terms of Endearment” (1983), neatly hurling Jack Nicholson’s double into the Gulf of Mexico.

Ms. Epper, whose bruising career spanned 70 years, died on Sunday at her home in Simi Valley, Calif. She was 83.

Her daughter, Eurlyne Epper, confirmed the death. She said her mother had been ill for some time and caught an infection during a recent hospital visit.

Ms. Epper was stunt royalty; her father was John Epper, a Swiss-born master horseman who doubled in westerns for Gary Cooper, Randolph Scott and Ronald Reagan. Like her five siblings, Ms. Epper joined the family business.

She was just 9 when she rode a horse bareback down a cliff in her first stunt. Her first film credit, however, as The Hollywood Reporter discovered, was “Cheyenne Autumn,” a 1964 western directed by John Ford. And she was a regular on the western series “The Big Valley,” which ran on ABC from 1965 to 1969, often doubling for Barbara Stanwyck.

“Wonder Woman,” which debuted in 1976 on ABC, was a watershed moment not just for Ms. Epper but also for all women in her industry. Despite the work of Ms. Epper and others, stunt doubling had long been mostly a man’s game, with men dressing as women to do their stunts, a practice known as wigging. The series was groundbreaking for featuring a female action hero.

“Actresses didn’t want hairy-legged boys as doubles,” Ms. Epper told Variety in 2007. “They wanted pretty girls. It slowly started changing the order of things.”

The rangy, 5-foot-9 Ms. Epper was used to the rough and tumble of the brotherhood that accepted her because of her father, and also because she had her own moxie. She was savvy about the sexism of the stunt world, and the movie business.

Zoë Bell, a New Zealand-born actor and stuntwoman whom Ms. Epper mentored, described the advice Ms. Epper gave her when she was putting together her résumé for a job doubling for Uma Thurman in “Kill Bill: Volume 1,” Quentin Tarantino’s 2003 martial arts splatterfest. (Ms. Bell, a talented gymnast, had been Lucy Lawless’s double during every season of “Xena: Warrior Princess,” which was shot in New Zealand and ran from 1995 to 2001.)

“She asked me what I weighed,” Ms. Bell recalled by phone. “I said ‘145-ish.’ Jeannie, without missing a beat, said ‘OK, so put 130. You look 130 and the actresses all lie.’ She went on to talk about recognizing a broken system and devising new rules that one feels good about, in order to be able to keep playing the game.”

Ms. Epper and Ms. Bell were the joint subjects of “Double Dare,” a 2004 documentary directed by Amanda Micheli. The film followed Ms. Epper as she hunted for work in her 60s and Ms. Bell, who was in her early 20s, as her career was just taking off.

“Jeannie was up against the inequity of women not getting promoted,” Ms. Micheli said. “The working life span of a stunt performer is brief, like a professional athlete’s. They’re using their bodies, they’re hitting the ground every day.

“The best stuntmen go on to become stunt coordinators, or even second-unit directors, which is a powerful role on an action film,” she continued. “Jeannie’s brother Gary got those opportunities, while she just kept hitting a wall. Instead of getting to call the shots, she was hustling for small jobs here and there, and taking hits well past her prime. I saw the pain that caused her, both figuratively and literally.”

In Ms. Epper’s youth, there were the usual mishaps. While jumping a horse off a raft in “Mackenna’s Gold” (1969), she nearly drowned when the horse floundered and flipped in the water. She was almost knocked out by Pam Grier in the 1974 blaxploitation film “Foxy Brown” when Ms. Grier smashed a painting over her head and sliced open her skull. She caught fire when a stunt went south in an episode of the late-1960s television series “Lancer.”

The years of stunts mostly took their toll in torn ligaments and battered joints. Not that she complained.

“Jeannie was bad-ass and a sweetheart,” Ms. Bell said. “A lady and one of the boys. A cowgirl and a finishing school graduate. A Christian and one of my favorite people to crack filthy jokes with.”

Jean Luann Epper was born on Jan. 27, 1941, in Glendale, Calif., and grew up in North Hollywood. Her father served in the cavalry in his native Switzerland and moved to Hollywood in the 1930s. There, he opened a riding academy and trained actors who were appearing in westerns. He also married Frances Robertson there.

Mr. Epper got into the stunt business when he was delivering a horse to a set and ended up doing the stunt himself — the scene involved jumping the animal over a car. He taught his three girls and three boys how to ride, how to jump and, most important, how to roll and how to fall.

As a young teenager, Jeannie was sent to finishing school for a few years in Switzerland — she hated it — and when she returned, she married at just 16, became a mother and went to work.

Her marriages to Wes Fuller, Richard Spaethe and Lee Sanders ended in divorce. In addition to her daughter, who is also a stuntwoman, Ms. Epper is survived by her husband, Tim Kimack; her son, Richard; five grandchildren; and seven great-grandchildren.

Among her many other credits, Ms. Epper appeared in eight films produced or directed by Steven Spielberg, including “1941,” the 1979 slapstick comedy that imagines an alternate reality to what happened in the days after Pearl Harbor. Most of her family was cast in that film, too. In Ms. Micheli’s documentary, Mr. Spielberg called the Eppers “the Flying Wallendas of film” and added that in a bar fight scene in “1941,” “there were Eppers flying all over the place.”

Ms. Epper’s last performance was not a stunt, exactly. In 2019, at 78, she was cast as a hostage in an episode of the ABC series “The Rookie,” a role that involved being bound, gagged and duct-taped to a chair with a shotgun strapped to her shoulder and pointed at her head.

Debbie Evans, a much-lauded stuntwoman who said she considered Ms. Epper her “stunt mom,” drove her to the set. “It was a special day,” Ms. Evans recalled. “She was so high and happy.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Thursday upholding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s funding mechanism will clear the way to resume a score of court cases that involve the agency but were frozen during the legal challenge, potentially including new rules for payday lenders and penalties against a money transmitter. But the ruling falls far short of eliminating the bureau’s legal obstacles.

Immediately after the ruling was announced, lawyers for the bureau, which is charged with preventing consumer abuse in the financial industry, began preparing dozens of legal filings to try to unfreeze its activities. Among them are requests to federal judges to end stays on new rules and on subpoenas to financial firms. While the Supreme Court’s ruling should resolve a few of the stays, the bureau will still struggle to overcome other roadblocks.

“The C.F.P.B. has now put all the existential threats to bed, but the next phase of this is the trench warfare of fighting the industry rule by rule,” said Graham Steele, a longtime financial regulation lawyer and former Treasury Department official.

He noted that Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s dissent cited three recent consumer bureau actions that, in Justice Alito’s view, would be “major changes” in consumer protection law. “Congress did not specifically authorize any of them,” the justice wrote.

That language signals probable challenges under the “major questions doctrine,” a fairly new but increasingly invoked legal principle that bars agencies from undertaking politically or economically significant actions without explicit approval from Congress.

The bureau’s troubles are most likely to continue in part because of rulings from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, where financial industry trade groups have filed a flurry of lawsuits challenging the agency’s actions. For several years, federal judges in the Fifth Circuit, which encompasses Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, have been freezing or striking down bureau actions using broad rulings, and the appeals panels have most often upheld or even expanded on those lower-court rulings.

“The Fifth Circuit has really become a vehicle for launching what would otherwise be completely off-the-wall — you know, not in the ballpark of standard legal consensus — arguments into the national conversation,” said K. Sabeel Rahman, a Cornell Law School professor and former official at the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Bank trade groups quickly pointed out that they had other issues with the regulator.

The Consumer Bankers Association was “heartened that this important legal question has been resolved,” said Lindsey Johnson, the group’s president, but she added that the Supreme Court decision “should not be considered a popular endorsement of the C.F.P.B.’s recent and seemingly political rulemakings.”

Jeremy Kress, assistant professor of business law at the University of Michigan Ross School of Business, said comments like Ms. Lindsey’s indicated that bank trade groups would press their concerns through administrative law channels. Government agencies must follow detailed rules when drafting regulations, and industry groups frequently accuse the consumer bureau of breaking them.

“Bank trade groups still have a lot more ammunition to bring this fight to the Fifth Circuit,” Mr. Kress said.

Here is a list of major actions by the bureau that were on hold as courts awaited the Supreme Court decision.

An $8 limit on most credit card late fees

This could be the first case to spring back to life. A rule sharply limiting most credit card late fees was scheduled to take effect this week, but industry groups immediately sued to block it. Judge Mark Pittman, the federal judge in Texas hearing the case, issued an injunction preventing the rule from taking effect, citing the Fifth Circuit’s decision that the consumer bureau’s funding mechanism was unconstitutional. With that decision now overturned, Judge Pittman could end the injunction — though the Fifth Circuit could again step in.

A rule requiring banks to share data on small-business loans

The purpose of this rule is to offer regulators a way to look at whether banks were making loans fairly or were discriminating against certain groups, including racial minorities, in their lending decisions. Banking trade groups argue that sharing data on their small-business lending would be too costly and burdensome for them.

In July, the bank groups won a bid to suspend the rule. Since then, both sides have filed briefs in support of their positions, but the judge overseeing the case had waited to consider them. The Supreme Court decision allows the case to proceed.

Examining banks and other financial firms for discrimination

In 2022, the bureau informed banks and other lenders that they would need to submit to regular tests to determine if their treatment of customers might inadvertently disadvantage certain groups, including racial minorities. Trade groups quickly challenged the move on several grounds. The bureau hadn’t given financial firms adequate notice that it was considering the move, they said. They also argued that it had no authority to check for discrimination.

A federal judge in the Eastern District of Texas, J. Campbell Barker, seized on the second claim, ruling that the bureau had failed to show “clear congressional authorization for the power it claims.”

The consumer bureau vowed to appeal the ruling, but agreed to wait until after the Supreme Court’s decision. It will now have to argue to a panel of the same judges that deemed its funding structure unconstitutional that Judge Barker made a mistake in his determination.

Restrictions on payday lenders

The consumer bureau worked for years to complete a sweeping set of restrictions on the payday lending industry — but before they took effect, President Donald J. Trump’s appointees to the bureau delayed, and then gutted, the new rule. Only minor provisions survived, including one preventing lenders from trying to repeatedly take funds from a borrower’s empty bank account.

Trade groups sued to block the watered-down rule as part of the lawsuit that the Supreme Court decided on Thursday. The ruling clears the way for the payday lending rule to take effect.

Enforcement actions

More than two years ago, the consumer bureau sued FirstCash, claiming that the pawnshop chain violated limits on the interest rate that can be charged on loans to active members of the military. The case had been suspended because of the Fifth Circuit’s now-overturned decision.

Another case, in which the bureau accused the international money transfer company MoneyGram of illegal errors and delays, was similarly stalled. That case and others are now able to move forward.

The bureau is also now likely to get approval from federal judges to collect information from a group of payday and other small-dollar lenders, including Check City Partnership, Financial Asset Management, Purpose Financial, Community Loans of America, in investigations it is conducting into possible violations of its rules. It is also awaiting a go-ahead on an information request it sent to National Credit Systems, a debt collector that it believes may have violated rules related to debt reporting and fair credit.

Representatives of Check City, Community Loans of America, Financial Asset Management, FirstCash, MoneyGram and Purpose Financial did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A lawyer for National Credit Systems declined to comment.