WASHINGTON —  The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a red-state constitutional challenge to California’s special authority to fight air pollution.

Over a dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas, the justices turned away an appeal from Ohio and 16 other conservative states, which asked the court to rule “the Golden State is not a golden child.”

While Monday’s brief order closes the door on a constitutional challenge to California’s anti-pollution standards, the court on Friday cleared the way for a different, more targeted legal challenge.

The oil and gas industry is suing over the state’s “zero emissions” goals for new vehicles, arguing California’s special authority to fight air pollution does not extend to greenhouse gases and global warming.

A lower court had dismissed that suit on the grounds the oil producers had no standing to sue. Their complaint was they would sell less fuel in the future.

On Friday, the justices agreed to reconsider that ruling early next year. They could clear the way for the suit to proceed.

Monday’s related order narrows the legal grounds that the industry can use to challenge California’s rule, assuming it eventually wins standing.

The incoming Trump administration is likely to intervene on the side of the challengers.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar had urged the court to turn down both appeals. They said California’s strict emissions standards are designed to fight smog and other air pollution as well as greenhouse gases.

They argued that Congress had ample authority under the Constitution to set special rules for problems in different states.

Since early in American history, they said Congress approved special customs duties for some states or rules involving tribes relations.

In challenging California’s authority, Ohio’s Atty. Gen. David Yost pointed to the court’s 2013 decision that struck down part of the Voting Rights Act on the grounds it violated the principle of equal state sovereignty.

When Congress adopted national air pollution standards in 1967, it said California could go further because it was already enforcing strict standards to combat the state’s worst-in-the-nation problem with smog.

Ohio and red states say this special authority violates “core constitutional principles because no state is more equal than the others. And Congress does not have the general power to elevate one state above the others….Yet in the Clean Air Act, Congress elevated California above all the other states by giving to the Golden State alone the power to pass certain environmental laws.”

Without commenting, the justices said they would not hear the constitutional claim.

The Environmental Defense Fund hailed the court’s announcement.

“California’s clean car standards have successfully helped reduce the dangerous soot, smog, and climate pollution that put all people at risk, while also turbocharging clean technologies and job creation,” said Alice Henderson, lead counsel for its clean-air policy group.

House GOP allies of President-elect Donald Trump are pushing for him to have greater control over Congress’ annual government spending process next year.

Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., is introducing a bill on Monday that would repeal a measure that forces the president to direct the federal government to spend the full amount of money allocated by Congress every year.

Clyde told Fox News Digital on Thursday that he also plans to introduce the bill in the next Congress, when Republicans control the House, Senate and White House – and that the issue is already being discussed in Trump’s circle.

“That was certainly a topic that was brought up” with Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk when they were on Capitol Hill earlier this month to discuss the Department of Government Efficiency, Clyde said.

REPUBLICANS GIVE DETAILS FROM CLOSED-DOOR MEETINGS WITH DOGE’S MUSK, RAMASWAMY

“They’re in favor of it, because how can you be efficient and not have the ability to reduce spending? You simply can’t.”

He also told a small group of reporters earlier this month that incoming Trump Office Of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought “is very much in favor of this.”

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed during the Nixon administration and aimed at stopping the president from having unilateral say over government spending.

Currently, a president must get congressional approval to rescind any funding that has been allocated for a certain year. The funds in question can be held for up to 45 days while the request gets processed.

“I think the authority is very, very important for the president to exercise,” Clyde said. “Ever since Congress introduced that act, you’ve seen spending literally spiraling upwards. And that’s just not good for our country.”

DANIEL PENNY TO BE TAPPED FOR CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL BY HOUSE GOP LAWMAKER

Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., is leading the charge to repeal the Impoundment Control Act. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Clyde’s bill would roll back the Impoundment Control Act. A corresponding bill is being introduced in the Senate by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.

Clyde said over a dozen House Republicans are backing his bill as well.

Musk and Ramaswamy advocated for Trump to have greater authority to rescind funding in an op-ed published by the Wall Street Journal last month, after the president-elect tapped them to lead an advisory panel on cutting government waste.

The Georgia Republican acknowledged that the bill has long odds in the current Democrat-controlled Senate and with just one week left in the congressional term, but said he would “definitely” introduce it in the next Congress.

MIKE JOHNSON WINS REPUBLICAN SUPPORT TO BE HOUSE SPEAKER AGAIN AFTER TRUMP ENDORSEMENT

Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, is against the idea. (Getty Images)

He described Monday’s introduction as “putting a flag in the ground, saying ‘Hey, this is an authority that the president should be able to use in an unhindered fashion, and we are going to help.’”

However, the issue is likely to fall along partisan lines. Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, responded to Musk and Ramaswamy’s op-ed by calling their ideas “as idiotic as they are dangerous.”

“Unilaterally slashing funds that have been lawfully appropriated by the people’s elected representatives in Congress would be a devastating power grab that undermines our economy and puts families and communities at risk,” Boyle said in a statement.