Supreme Court Rejects GOP States’ Challenge to Biden’s Rule Estimating Social Cost of Carbon

“The Guardian” or “Authority of Law" statue by James Earle Frasier in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Sept. 28, 2020. Al Drago/Getty Images

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a lawsuit from Republican-led states challenging the Biden administration’s attempt to assign a social cost to carbon—a foundational element to all life.

No explanation was given and the Court merely listed Missouri v. Biden on Tuesday as one of the petitions for writ of certiorari that were denied. The Supreme Court similarly refused earlier this year to hear another challenge to the estimates.

Last year, the Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit affirmed a federal district court’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit. The eighth circuit ruled that the states lacked standing to challenge the estimates and indicated they could sue if it identified a concrete injury.

Besides Missouri, 10 states requested the Supreme Court take up the issue: Tennessee, Utah, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Kansas, Indiana, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Montana.

“We will continue to combat government overreach at every turn,” Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s office told The Epoch Times in a statement.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey speaks to his staff in March 2023. Courtesy of the Missouri Attorney General's Office

After taking office in 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order establishing the “Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases,” which included, among others, leadership from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Council of Economic Advisors.

Former President Barack Obama initially put the “social cost” at $43 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions. His successor, former President Donald Trump, put the number at $3–$5 and President Biden responded by using a $51 estimate.

“An accurate social cost is essential for agencies to accurately determine the social benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions when conducting cost-benefit analyses of regulatory and other actions,” the order read.

OMB did not immediately respond to The Epoch Times’s request for comment but similarly defended the estimates when the Supreme Court rejected a prior challenge from Louisiana.

“Properly accounting for the harms caused by greenhouse gas emissions is critical to our work to reduce energy costs and protect Americans from the growing impacts of climate change, which is already costing American communities and businesses billions of dollars in mitigation and response,” the agency said, according to CNN.

A backyard overlooks the valley to the GenOn Cheswick Power Station, which burns coal to produce 637 megawatts of electricity for the region, in Cheswick, Penn., on June 7, 2021. Jeff Swensen/Getty Images

The red states in Missouri v. Biden and Louisiana’s case both argued that the impacts of the costs will potentially be widespread, affecting every sector of the American economy.

Their petition notes that the executive order said agencies “shall“ use the interim costs ”when monetizing the value of changes in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from regulations and other relevant agency actions until final values are published.”

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar responded to the states’ petition with a brief in which she cautioned that agencies aren’t required to adopt the cost estimate. She also backed the eighth circuit in criticizing the states’ claim to standing in the case.

“It is conjecture whether a particular federal agency will ultimately use the interim estimates as a basis for a particular rule that results in a cognizable injury to petitioners,” she said. “The agency could choose not to regulate at all. If it decides to regulate, it could conclude that the applicable statute requires it to regulate without regard to effects on greenhouse gases.”

It seems likely that future regulations utilizing the social cost estimate would prompt additional lawsuits.

“Litigation on the social cost of carbon is likely to move to challenging the regulations issued which are justified by the social cost of carbon values,” David Watkins, an attorney with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said in a statement provided to The Epoch Times.  “The same problems with the social cost of carbon numbers exist regardless of where they are used.”