I’m not sure I follow you. If a bill says, for example, that the US may not sell shelled walnuts to Fiji, it’s pretty specific. How could the courts abuse that?
You underestimate the imagination of the average federal judge. Imagine a law, which was passed as a single bill, says X, how to enforce X and how much money is appropriated for both. A federal judge who likes that law will interpret it to be one issue. On the other hand, a federal judge who dislikes that law will interpret it to be two or three issues.