It is exactly SCOTUS’ job to interpret laws. If laws require divination then they are not really laws.
What do you mean by a “true” constitutional question? Not qualifying for “strict scrutiny” according to Footenote Four? The presumption of constitutionality for only favored types of challenges is arbitrary. Nothing could be clearer constitutionally than that the administration is incompetent to legislate. Even if Congress has capitulated to it. SCOTUS is competent to oppose this.
Granted, SCOTUS’ capitulation is old news, so I don’t blame this bunch particularly.
Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, “The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America.” And, Article II, section 3 asserts that, “The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed...”
The executive cannot (legally) violate laws or the constitution.
If Congress wished to restrict the President in the making of such rules they do have the option of amending or making laws to make the proposed regulation illegal or unconstitional. If they can’t, because they are the minority party, well, elections matter. To me worst case is
a SC overruling the will of the electorate and governing from the bench. That is a two edged sword and you wouldn’t
want such a weapon in the hands of an Obama or an FDR (again).