All of the institutions of government--Congress, the Presidency, the bureaucracy, and the courts --have a role in the steering of the nation's affairs. The act of making decisions, establishing rules and regulations relative to this steering (or government, from the Latin gubernare--to steer) is referred to as public policy. While public policy may incorporate every aspect of American life, it generally may be divided into four major categories: Domestic Policy, Economic Policy, Foreign Policy, and Defense Policy. While these areas of policy may be generally divided, however, the distinctions may become less clear when dealing with specific policy decisions.

Public policy may also be understood in terms of the process by which policies are formed and reformed--the public policy cycle. This process is typically framed in terms of a problem-solving process whereby problems are identified and addressed. A substantial variety exists in the specific means by which the public policy cycle moves, depending on the area of policy to be considered; but the process itself may be understood as having five steps.

The first step in the policymaking process is to identify a problem. Numerous problems exist, but until they are identified as problems by policymakers, they cannot be addressed. This typically occurs through public debate, but policymakers may also rely on their environments--constituents, associates, interest groups, and media--to bring policy problems to their attention

Once a problem has been identified, the reaction to that problem and the solutions applied to a problem are a part of the public policy cycle:

1. Agenda building: This is the effort to identify a problem and bring it to policymakers' attention. This may come through a crisis, or through the lobbying efforts of interest groups, strong political personalities, or others concerned about the problem.
2. Formulation: This consists of the debate that occurs among government officials and the public in the media, in Congress, and through campaigns. Various solutions to the problem are considered and debated.
3. Adoption: This is the selection of a strategy for addressing the problem among the solutions discussed. It may come in the form of new legislation, new regulations, new interpretations of past policies, or, more broadly understood, an election.
4. Implementation: This is the administration of the policy adopted by the bureaucracy, law enforcement agencies, the courts, private citizens, and others.
5. Evaluation: Groups evaluate the policy to determine if it has had the desired impact. The feedback also evaluates unintended consequences of the policy adoption. This feedback is a part of the building and formulation process, so that a particular policy may be adjusted if necessary. Evaluation leads to an identification of new problems to be addressed, starting the cycle anew. However, evaluation may be highly politicized, where proponents of existing policy exaggerate the benefits of current policy, while opponents exaggerate the deficiencies of current policy. Still others will point out evidence of corruption in the policymaking process, identifying new problems to be addressed in order to bring about effective policy.

Because the role of the Judiciary is to settle disputes in matters of law, the courts play an active role in the evaluation of public policy, especially when ambiguities or legal deficiencies may arise during the course of the adoption and implementation of public policy. Judicial decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka KS and Kilgarlin v. Martin have served to identify a variety of public policy problems, from injustices resulting from segregation to inequities surrounding legislative redistricting.

The basic purpose of the Judiciary—the courts—in the United States is to resolve disputes among citizens arising in matters of law. Law in the United States is based primarily on the English legal system because of the American colonial experience. Once the colonies broke from Great Britain, the old English system was kept largely intact and states began to operate their courts according to the traditions of the previous form of government. Unlike many other countries, the English court system incorporated a common law tradition which arose from the acceptance of court decisions informed by prevailing custom and eventually on legal precedent. This concept is referred to as stare decisis which means to stand on decided cases. If a legal situation occurs that has previously been decided, the decision in the initial case is legally binding on the current situation. The major advantages of this type of system are effiiciency , stability, and consistency in the resolution of disputes.

The principal sources of American law include:

1. constitution: this includes the US Constitution and the various state constitutions. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and sets forth guidelines regarding the division of power between the federal and state governments. Unless a state constitution is in direct violation of the US Constitution, The state constitutions are supreme within the borders of their respective states.
2. Statutes, treaties, and administrative regulations: Frequently, courts are asked to resolve disputes in matters which require an interpretation of specific laws, treaties, and regulations, which are then applied to specific situations
3. Case law: laws derived from judicial decisions in other cases. Case law includes judicial interpretations of common law provisions and of statutes, treaties, and regulations.

The court system in the United States includes both federal and state courts. Article III of the Constitution provides for the establishment of a Supreme Court, as well as granting Congress with the power to establish lower federal courts. These courts are limited in what sort of cases they may hear as a matter of jurisdiction. On the federal level, the courts are limited to cases which involve a federal question, in which a dispute arises in matters relevant to federal law, and those which involve a diversity of citizenship, where parties in a case may come from different states, or where a US citizen brings a suit against a citizen or government of a foreign country.

The federal court system has three levels:

1. US district courts are trial courts (courts of original jurisdiction) with general jurisdiction, where either civil or criminal cases may be heard. Each state has at least one federal district court, and there are now 94 districts.
2. US Courts of Appeals are appellate courts that hear appeals from US district courts located within their circuit. The Thirteenth Circuit has national appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the US government itself. In appellate cases, the cases are not re-tried. Rather, a panel of judges reviews the transcript of the trial and the decision, and they decide if a mistake was made. The decisions of these courts are generally final, with the rare exception being when the US Supreme Court chooses to hear an appeal.
3. The US Supreme Court is the highest court in the country. While its jurisdiction is largely appellate, this court does have original jurisdiction in some cases. Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President and subject to Senate confirmation.

A president is elected to serve a four-year term and can only serve for two terms. However, his influence can last much longer depending on the judicial appointments he makes to the federal courts. John Kennedy selected Byron White as a justice to the Supreme Court. White served on the court during eight different administrations. While Justice White's tenure is longer than most federal judges, his appointment does demonstrate the impact a president can have on the judicial system.

After the president has nominated a candidate for any federal judicial position, the US Senate must consider the candidate. If a majority of the Senate approves the candidate, the president will then appoint the judge to serve for as long as the judge wishes, so long as it is "during good behavior."

While it is unusual for the Senate to reject appointments at the District or Circuit levels, Supreme Court nominations must be considered carefully. In selecting candidates for any of these positions presidents have primarily taken into account party affiliation and political philosophy, but legal background, education, age, gender, race, or religious affiliation have also been cited. In addition, presidents have also considered whether or not an appointee will meet the Senate's approval. This is especially difficult when the president belongs to one party and the majority of Senators belong to another. Senators may also invoke Senatorial courtesy, whereby an appointee may be rejected or approved based upon the attitude of the Senator from the state in which the appointee resides.

Once the Court has decided to accept a case, both parties in the case will submit legal reasoning as to how the case should be decided by the Court. Oral arguments are also included on occasion, but cases are decided on points of law rather than facts of the case. After all arguments have been made the Court will decide the outcome of the case. If the Court is unanimous in the ruling, one justice will be assigned to write the opinion of the Court. If the justices are divided on the reasoning of the outcome, there will be a majority opinion and dissenting opinions. Dissenting opinions are important because they typically form the basis of reversal arguments. Occasionally there will be a concurring opinion by a justice. This opinion states a differing point of view on a legal issue, but the outcome is in agreement with the majority of the Court.

Texas has a variety of courts ranging from the informal municipal and justice of the peace courts to the powerful Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals. Unlike the Federal Judiciary, the Texas Court system includes a Dual Supreme Court, in which the Texas Supreme Court has final appellate jurisdiction in civil and juvenile matters, while the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has final appellate jurisdiction in criminal matters.

The first thing that must be determined when a court-bound conflict arises is whether the case is civil or criminal in nature. Civil law cases generally involve two or more private parties, one of which takes the other to court, or "sues" to recover damages. The loser of a civil court trial may be required to give the winner a sum of money or some property. Losers of criminal cases, on the other hand, may lose more than just money. Criminal cases are always instigated by the government and are always against an individual accused of breaking a law.

The court most likely to be familiar to a majority of Texans is the municipal court. This court is distinctive because it is the only court in Texas to which judges are not necessarily elected. All other courts in Texas require judges to be elected by the people. The jurisdiction of the municipal court is strictly criminal, and only a few are courts of record. Justice courts hear both civil and criminal cases, and like the municipal setting, informality is the general rule.

The county courts at law and district courts hear both civil and criminal cases. County courts at law may be specialized, and the Texas legislature may also create additional courts, such as Probate courts, as the need arises. Th more serious criminal cases (felonies) and the civil cases involving more money are heard in the district courts. The district court is the highest trial court (court of original jurisdiction) in the state. In the criminal arena, the District Court may impose the ultimate punishment—death. On the civil end, there is no limit as to how much a district court may award in damages.

Texas’ appellate system includes 14 courts of appeals, which hear both civil and criminal cases. At the top of the system are the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Texas and Oklahoma are the only states with such a dual supreme court system. Other states, and the federal court system, allow their supreme courts to hear both civil and criminal cases.

The reason for the vigor of the debates concerning judicial appointments is that it is widely recognized that the courts play a large role in determining policy throughout the country. One of the important way in which the courts influence policy is through judicial review. If a case challenges a decision of a state court affecting the status of a state action in relation to federal law or the US Constitution, a federal court may effectively declare through its decision the state action unconstitutional. As a result of the Supreme Court decision in the Marbury v. Madison case in 1803 the concept of judicial review broadened to include the possibility that acts of Congress could be unconstitutional as well.

To some extent the ability of the courts to act as policymakers depends on the activism or the restraint of the courts. If the Court assumes an activist role, it will use its power to direct policy toward a particular goal. An activist court takes a broad view of the Constitution and involves itself in legislative and executive matters. If, on the other hand, the Court assumes the role of judicial restraint, it rarely uses the power of judicial review and limits judicial action in the political process.

The courts’ policymaking function is the result of the evolution of the role of the judiciary. In Federalist #78 Madison noted that the judiciary was the "least dangerous" branch of government because it lacked enforcement powers. In the early years, the Supreme Court was in fact a rather weak branch of the federal government. With the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison and the practice of judicial review, however, the courts have continued to expand their power.

Despite the expanding power of the Judiciary, both the Executive and the Legislative branches have important checks against Judicial policymaking.

The president has the power to enforce judicial decisions through the bureaucracy, and executive commitment to the policy may affect how aggressively these decisions are implemented. More importantly, however, the president has the power of appointment to check the judiciary. When vacancies occur within the judiciary the president can select judges whose understanding of the Constitution and laws are more consistent with his/her own views. In this way the president can affect policy long after he/she leaves office.

The Congress also has a check against the courts. When the courts make a ruling on a particular law in a particular case, the legislature can revise the law if the interpretation of the law is not what the legislature intended. In the case of the federal government, the Congress may propose a Constitutional amendment is the Congress disagrees with the Supreme Court over a Constitutional matter. Statutes may also be amended if Congress believes the Supreme Court interprets them in a manner inconsistent with legislative intent.

To a certain extent, however, the courts also check themselves. Their unwillingness to adjudicate political questions, and to leave such questions for resolution by elected bodies demonstrates that the courts sometimes see their role as limited.