Holmes dissented when the Supreme Court
overturned economic regulations as violating substantive due process or freedom of contract not because he favored the regulations, but because he thought that the forces which dominated the political branches should be allowed to govern in their own way.
The Texas lawsuit is not arguing that the
regulations should be
overturned merely because they are inordinately burdensome or costly to certain
economic interests — it is directly attacking the legitimacy of the science that the EPA relied on to reach an endangerment finding (which the Supreme Court declared the EPA was not only authorized, but obligated to do).