95 NC L Rev Addendum 48 (2016)
In Volume 94 of the North Carolina Law Review, Jason Mazzone and Carl Emery Woock proposed a new explanation for the Supreme Court's decisions in United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison: the Court was attempting to protect lower federal courts for the important tasks that the Constitution contemplates for them in light of an increasingly aggressive Congress ("Mazzone-Woock hypothesis"). To support this hypothesis, the "[a]rticle relies heavily on a rich and surprisingly underused resource: the annual testimony... by Supreme Court Justices before congressional committees in support of the Court's annual budgetary requests." This brief response examines the Mazzone-Woock hypothesis. I conclude that the hypothesis is inherently difficult to prove and that the authors, despite their efforts, have not yet done so.