MY answer is exclusively "(b)." While it is reasonable to expect some other people to file suit (if not the Administration itself), my position is that it is irrelevant. There is absolutely no need to go ASKING the Judicial Branch for their input. The President (like you are or I am) is perfectly capable of deciding all on his own that the hypothetical law is an abomination and without any valid basis in the Constitution.
But let's go that extra step: What if the Judicial Branch accepted the case and ultimately declared it Constitutional?
Would that suddenly make that abomination of an Unconstitutional law anything other than an abomination and UnConstitutional?
Would your opinion change if the Court then presumed to order the President to "enforce" the law?
Mine would not.
I believe that's too simple.
In the Indian relocation case the Supreme Court decided with the Cherokee tribe that the forced relocation was against the law. Pres Jackson refused to enforce the court's decision and ordered them relocated anyway. Clearly he thought the law was on his side, or he could disregard the court's opinion (his reported statement was, now let them enforce it.).
In the AL Ten Commandments case the governor finally gave in to the courts, which ordered him to remove the offending material. But he thought he had a duty to uphold the law and was acting within Constitutional boundaries.
The short of it is that the executive has discretion and power and engages in constitutional interpretation.
I don't see why you think it's "too simple." The only difference between what Jackson did and my silly hypothetical is that Jackson improperly disregarded a SCOTUS ruling whereas the President in my hypo would be disregarding an UnConstitutional Congressionally enacted Law. In both scenarios, the President is demonstrating that the Executive has the ability to engage in Constitutional analysis.
Jackson was right in one way, and very wrong in another way, probably for the wrong reasons, too.
But that doesn't alter the fact that the Executive Branch most certainly can and does engage in Constitutional analysis. And it should. and if the Court CLEARLY tramples the Constitution in a ruling, thereby purporting to order the President to violate the Constitution, then in order to honor the Oath of Office, I maintain a President is duty bound to disregard the SCOTUS "command."
I can't believe I'm saying this...but if you flesh out what he's saying the Rabbi has a point.
If the Executive has the power to disregard one Judicial ruling or Legislative Act, what is stopping it from disregarding all Judicial rulings and Legislative Acts? The opinion of the Executive alone. A power is a power, it's a tool that can be used properly....or abused.