Executive-Judicial Interaction as a Factor in Explaining Presidential Policy Making

Despite the fact that presidents spend a considerable amount of time on foreign affairs, the president's ability to influence domestic policy continues to receive considerable scholarly attention and analysis. Studies have revealed that presidents are important actors in the early stages of policy formation, especially agenda setting and policy initiation (Light 1999). We also find that presidential leadership during the implementation phase is crucial in executing policy. As scholars continue to delve into more sophisticated understandings of the role of the president in policy making, weaknesses have been observed in the presidency-centered view of policy making and instead greater attention is being paid to the institutional presidency. In addition, scholars have investigated the president's ability to influence the policy agenda by examining other important institutional factors. In short, more rigorous studies of the executive's influence in domestic policy making highlight the explanatory power of institutionalism and its implications (Light 2000). Edwards and Wood's (1999) approach to understanding the president's ability to influence domestic policy making included an examination of the interactive relationships with other institutional actors in the political system such as Congress and the mass media. Their research demonstrated that "under special circumstances presidents move issues onto the agenda of other institutions and focus attention, especially when the issue is important to them and constitutes a major presidential initiative" (Edwards and Wood 1999, 342). Their work called for the exploration of other paths of influence in understanding domestic policy making. The rich analysis underlying the studies that call attention away from a presidency-centered model in understanding policy making makes sense given the complex, pervasive, and dynamic interactions between the three branches of government under a system of checks and balances. Our inquiry into understanding the forces that help shape presidential influence in domestic policy making must include one that focuses on an interbranch dialogue on policy questions of major significance. The primary objective of this research is to investigate the nature of presidential influence and success in domestic policy making within a context of executive-judicial interaction. Specifically, I focus on how the executive attempts to influence domestic policy through litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court. Presidential influence and success in domestic policy making are not limited to executive interaction with Congress. Utilizing a system of separated institutions competing for shared powers framework (Jones 1994; Fisher 1998), I make an attempt to demonstrate how the executive participates actively at the decisional point of whether to pursue legal policy problems before the Supreme Court. The fact that attention is placed on the Supreme Court rather than Congress, on one hand, reveals the close alliance between the executive and the Court and, on the other hand, highlights another important institutional means of evaluating presidential influence in the policy-making process. In sum, I seek to examine the intersection where executive and judicial interests converge in the domestic policy arena. A comprehensive examination of executive-judicial interaction in all areas of domestic policy making is beyond the scope of this study, nor is it my intention to compare these relationships across various presidential administrations. This study is restricted to an examination of one subissue area in the domestic agenda space--civil rights policy--and limited to a study of a single administration--the Kennedy era. Legitimate substantive and methodological criticisms have been raised against this episodic approach to the study of presidential policy making. However, the objective here is to analyze the policy influence within one administration to better understand its contributions in a broader policy context and to provide a conceptual foundation for subsequent research on executive-judicial interaction as a factor in understanding presidential policy making. …