"If I were not constrained by what I believe is binding precedent ... I would hold Section 1713 is unconstitutional because it violates the Separation of Powers doctrine," Molloy wrote in his 18-page decision.
But he added higher courts have held that "so long as Congress uses the words without regard to any other provision in statute or regulation that applies,' or something similar, then the doctrine of constitutional avoidance requires the court to impose a saving interpretation(.)"
After reading that excerpt, this seems to be a different issue. And not really a constitutional issue.
It’s appears now that the court does have judicial review. It’s just that Congress effectively said, delist these regardless of any other laws we have passed. So there is no conflict with the constitution, just prior legislation, and Congress with their wording, said this law trumps prior legislation.
So now it’s just a judge that want’s to apply other laws when Congress has effectively said this is an exception to other laws.
I think it is constitutional for Congress to say “Do this” regardless of any other laws we have passed. The presumption being that congress knows what other laws they have passed, and mean to “Do this” regardless. Congress would have the power to enumerate all the other laws and pass exceptions to them. It might be a little dangerous if overused, but Congress clearly has that power.