[T]he federal judiciary, from the Supreme Court itself down to the federal district court in Guam, may, and indeed must, treat Congress the way courts would treat an administrative agency, whose work will be set aside on appeal if the court finds the record made by the agency not substantial enough to justify the agency's rulings. Rigorous in itself, this criterion has been made more rigorous by the Supreme Court's dismissal of what it has styled "anecdotal evidence," with the implication that stories testifed to by witnesses before congressional committees are not enough to justify legislation. In this way an act of Congress is subjected to stringent judicial scrutiny to determine the nationwide extent of the evil against which the act is directed. In contrast, the Supreme Court's own announcement of constitutional law, binding on the whole country, is based on the record compiled in a single case.
Hon. John T. Noonan, Jr., Narrowing the Nation's Power: The Supreme Court Sides With the States (2002).
Discuss (25%). Since this is an intellectual property blawg, your answer should consider both College Savings Bank and Arte Publico Press. Suggested time: 45 minutes.