The Baird government rushed laws through the NSW Parliament this month to validate previous findings and investigations that were jeopardised by a landmark High Court ruling on the scope of the commission's powers.

Mining mogul Travers Duncan, who was found to have acted corruptly by concealing the involvement of the Obeid family in a coal tenement, claims the laws overstep parliament's powers under the Constitution.

Mr Duncan and three of his associates were already seeking to have findings overturned by the Court of Appeal. However, his lawyers now want the constitutional parts of his case "removed" and heard by the High Court.

In submissions filed on Thursday, the ICAC said it did not oppose the removal application and "on balance, the considerations in favour of removal slightly outweigh those against".

It said "the need for the early resolution of the constitutional question" was a consideration weighing in favour of the High Court hearing the dispute.

It noted that Mr Duncan's challenge has "direct implications" for other cases against the ICAC, including a challenge brought by a group of businessmen to corruption findings stemming from an inquiry into a lucrative Doyles Creek coal licence.

Justice Stephen Gageler is expected to rule on Monday on whether the High Court will hear the dispute. If the court decides against hearing the case, the Court of Appeal will determine all of the issues in dispute.

The ICAC has said that if this is the case, the Court of Appeal might consider hearing the constitutional question first, because if Mr Duncan succeeds on this point he would win the case.