Staff Reports
The Supreme Court has refused to hear a lawsuit brought by Republican-led states challenging the Biden administration's efforts to designate a social cost to carbon, dealing a disappointing blow to Republican concerns about carbon regulation. Missouri v. Biden was merely listed as one of the petitions for a writ of certiorari that were denied, with no explanation of the Court's decision. In addition, the Supreme Court refused to consider a challenge earlier this year.
Supreme Court Rejects GOP States' Challenge to Biden's Rule Estimating Social Cost of Carbon
GOP concerns about the federal regulation of carbon—a foundational element to all life—will not be heard by the Supreme Court.https://t.co/egXigpJLqy
— The Epoch Times (@EpochTimes) October 12, 2023
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal district court's dismissal of the lawsuit on the grounds that the states lacked standing to challenge the estimates. The circuit court did imply, however, that the states could sue if they could identify a concrete injury. Missouri and ten other states (Tennessee, Utah, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Kansas, Indiana, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Montana) had anticipated that the Supreme Court would take up the issue despite the setback.
In a statement to The Epoch Times, the office of Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey stated that they would continue to combat government excess. The lawsuit stems from President Biden's executive order establishing the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, which intended to use cost-benefit analysis to determine the social benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
In accordance with the executive order, President Biden increased the estimated social cost of carbon dioxide emissions from $3 to $5 per ton to $51 per ton. His predecessor, President Trump, had established the estimate between $3 and $5. These costs, according to the red states implicated in the lawsuit, will have far-reaching effects on the American economy. However, in response to their petition, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar cautioned that agencies are not required to implement the cost estimate and that it is speculative whether a particular federal agency will use the estimate as a regulatory basis. How future regulations utilizing the social cost estimate will function in court remains to be seen.
