State of Louisiana v. Biden, 64 F.4th 674

In January 2021 President Biden issued E.O. 13990 reestablishing an interagency Working Group to publish interim dollar estimates of the "social cost" of carbon, methane, and nitrous oxide for use in federal cost–benefit analyses.
The Working Group published Interim Estimates (largely reflecting the 2016 prior Working Group, with inflation adjustments) and OIRA issued guidance that agencies must use applicable statutory authority and respond to significant comments if they rely on those estimates.
A coalition of States (Plaintiffs) sued, alleging E.O. 13990 and the Interim Estimates were procedurally invalid, arbitrary and capricious, inconsistent with statutes, and ultra vires; they sought and obtained a district-court preliminary injunction barring agencies from using the Estimates.
Defendants (federal agencies and officials) appealed; the Fifth Circuit stayed the injunction pending appeal and the Supreme Court declined intervention.
The Fifth Circuit dismissed the suit for lack of Article III jurisdiction, holding Plaintiffs failed to prove a concrete, particularized injury fairly traceable to the Executive Order or Interim Estimates because any harms depend on speculative future agency rulemaking.
The court rejected procedural-injury and special‑solicitude arguments: the Estimates impose no binding mandate on states or agencies, and denial of an opportunity to comment (without a concrete downstream injury) does not establish standing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III standing / injury in fact	The Interim Estimates will cause fiscal, regulatory, and economic harms to States (e.g., higher costs, coerced program changes).	The EO/Estimates do not require agencies to act; any harms depend on independent, future agency decisions.	No standing: alleged injuries are speculative and not imminent.
Traceability	Harms flow from federal adoption/use of the Estimates in rulemaking.	Any injuries would result from later agency rulemaking, not the Executive Order or Interim Estimates themselves.	Traceability fails because harms are attributable to hypothetical future agency actions.
Procedural-rights injury	States were deprived of the chance to meaningfully comment on the Estimates, which is a procedural harm.	Procedural deprivation without a concrete injury is insufficient for Article III standing.	No procedural-standing: procedural denial in vacuo cannot confer Article III standing.
State sovereign interest / special solicitude	States lose freedom administering cooperative federalism programs and need special solicitude.	The EO applies only to federal agencies and does not directly alter state law or coerce states.	Special solicitude not dispositive; Plaintiffs still must show concrete injury and failed to do so.

Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (standing requires concrete, particularized injury; speculative chain of future events insufficient)
Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (threatened injury must be credible and imminent; attenuated chain of possibilities fails)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (Article III injury must be "concrete and particularized")
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete injury, causation, and redressability)
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (states’ sovereign interests can support standing, but plaintiffs still must show injury)
ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605 (1989) (courts should not presume how agency discretion will be exercised)
Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. EPA, 682 F.3d 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (errors in agency cost–benefit analysis can render a rule unreasonable)
Sierra Club v. FERC, 827 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (procedural statutes like NEPA do not mandate particular outcomes and do not by themselves create concrete injuries)
Missouri v. Biden, 52 F.4th 362 (8th Cir. 2022) (parallel holding that States lacked standing to challenge E.O. 13990 and Interim Estimates)
Texas v. United States, 40 F.4th 205 (5th Cir. 2022) (contrasting precedent where state plaintiffs proved immediate, measurable injuries from agency memoranda)