I mean, controversial but (ultimately confirmed) constitutional laws has a tendency to be challenged anyway, especially when the person who disagrees is in the government. This is not specific to this law, but instead just a general commentary on who brings cases to the court.

Specifically to this case though, they might argue it's violating the so-called "power of the purse", which constitutionally is solely given to the Houses. I'm not sure if it will be enough (given common-law precedent), but I won't be shocked if someone will use this argument.

> Specifically to this case though, they might argue it's violating the so-called "power of the purse", which constitutionally is solely given to the Houses.

Unlikely to work. The Appropriations Clause gives Congress control over spending; the debt ceiling only affects money that's already spent per Congressional appropriation.

Because the current make up of the court, as well recent rulings seems to indicate that the Supreme Court is willing to start looking at limiting the ability of Congress is just hand wave is responsibility of making defined laws away to the executive branch like they have been prone to do for the last few decades.

Congress needs to legislate not just demand the executive / Administrative state do all the things.