Whether the Non-Delegation Doctrine prohibits Congress from delegating legislative powers to an executive agency without an intelligible principle, particularly in the context of land condemnation for private infrastructure projects

The request for limited and temporary injunctive relief implicates three serious constitutional questions: Whether Landowners are likely to prevail on jurisdiction over this structural Non-Delegation Doctrine challenge in light of this Court’s unanimous 9-0 decision in Axon Enter. v. FTC, 143 8S. Ct. 890 (2023), and FERC’s admission it cannot adjudicate separation of powers claims to the agency’s enabling legislation? Whether §324 of the Debt Ceiling Bill, enacted to bypass environmental permitting cases in the Fourth Circuit, applies and strips jurisdiction over this NonDelegation Doctrine case even though Landowners are alleging constitutional (not statutory) violations and this Court has never allowed Congress to pass one unconstitutional law (the NGA) and then pass a second law (§324) preventing courts from reviewing the constitutionality of the first? If the inquiry does not end there, whether §324 is unconstitutional? Whether the overly broad transfer of legislative powers via the Natural Gas Act in 1938 violates the Non-Delegation Doctrine under Articles I-III of the Constitution by ceding “unfettered discretion” (with no intelligible principle) to the executive branch as in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), and whether a private entity can wield legislative powers to condemn private land for private gain? PARTIES AND