Is it wrong for the supreme court to consider the most economically savvy option instead of the most just one?

I'm doing a mock supreme court case (Cutter v. Wilkinson, plaintiff) and I know that my opponent is going to say that we should reject my plan because it will affect a small part of the US population but it will cost the whole population more tax dollars. His case centers on how it is fiscally irresponsible to do my plan (thought its' costs would actually be very minimal). I've been searching and I haven't been able to find anything on why the supreme court should always make the most JUST decision, regardless of money. Does anyone have any good articles or advice about this