The three branches of government

In this lesson: Match each branch with its main responsibility.

The Constitution divides federal power among three branches. Each has a main job, and each can limit some actions of the others. This is called checks and balances.

Makes laws

Legislative

Creates and enacts laws. At the federal level, Congress consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Congress passes legislation establishing a federal program.

Carries out laws

Executive

Carries out and enforces laws. The President leads the federal executive branch, which includes departments and agencies.

An authorized federal agency administers the program within the law’s limits.

Resolves cases

Judicial

Interprets and applies laws when resolving cases. Courts can decide whether a challenged government action violates the Constitution.

A court resolves a properly presented challenge to the program’s legal authority.

Optional knowledge check

Which branch does this?

3 questions · feedback after each choice

Try an answer, revise it, or reveal the explanation. No score or timer. Answers stay in this open page only.

Which branch does this?
Congress passes legislation creating a national program. Which branch is acting?

Reveal answers & explanations
  • Legislative — best answer

    Yes. The legislative branch creates and enacts laws. Congress is the federal legislature.

  • Executive

    Try another branch. The executive branch carries out and enforces laws. The President leads the federal executive branch.

  • Judicial

    Try another branch. The judicial branch interprets and applies law when resolving cases, including constitutional challenges.

Which branch does this?
The President directs an authorized agency to carry out a federal law. Which branch is acting?

Reveal answers & explanations
  • Legislative

    Try another branch. The legislative branch creates and enacts laws. Congress is the federal legislature.

  • Executive — best answer

    Yes. The executive branch carries out and enforces laws. The President leads the federal executive branch.

  • Judicial

    Try another branch. The judicial branch interprets and applies law when resolving cases, including constitutional challenges.

Which branch does this?
A court decides whether a challenged law violates the Constitution. Which branch is acting?

Reveal answers & explanations
  • Legislative

    Try another branch. The legislative branch creates and enacts laws. Congress is the federal legislature.

  • Executive

    Try another branch. The executive branch carries out and enforces laws. The President leads the federal executive branch.

  • Judicial — best answer

    Yes. The judicial branch interprets and applies law when resolving cases, including constitutional challenges.

How courts are organized

In this lesson: Distinguish a trial court’s work from an appellate court’s work.

Trial courts receive evidence, determine facts, and apply the law. Appellate courts usually review the existing record for legal or procedural error; they do not simply hold a new trial.

These are simplified pathways. The right court and appeal route depend on the kind of case. Supreme Court review is generally discretionary: asking for review does not mean the court must accept it.

Federal courts
  1. Trial

    U.S. District Court

    Explore this court

    The main federal trial court. It hears evidence, resolves disputed facts through a judge or jury, and applies the law.

  2. Appeal

    U.S. Court of Appeals

    Explore this court

    Reviews challenged district-court decisions, and certain agency decisions, within its authority. The focus is review of the decision and record.

  3. Highest court

    U.S. Supreme Court

    Explore this court

    The nation’s highest court. It resolves important federal and constitutional questions. It generally chooses which cases to review.

A federal issue may also reach the U.S. Supreme Court from a state-court case. Some matters use other routes.

California state courts
  1. Trial

    California Superior Court

    Explore this court

    California’s general trial court. It hears civil, criminal, family, and other matters within its authority.

  2. Appeal

    California Court of Appeal

    Explore this court

    Reviews trial-court decisions in cases within its appellate authority, usually using the record, written arguments, and sometimes oral argument.

  3. Highest court

    California Supreme Court

    Explore this court

    California’s highest court. It interprets state law and the state Constitution. Its review is generally discretionary, with exceptions.

For example, some appeals go to a Superior Court appellate division. A judgment imposing death receives automatic California Supreme Court review.

Optional knowledge check

Where would a case ordinarily begin?

1 question · feedback after each choice

Try an answer, revise it, or reveal the explanation. No score or timer. Answers stay in this open page only.

Where would a case ordinarily begin?
A new civil lawsuit needs a court to hear evidence and decide disputed facts. Assuming it has authority over the case, which kind of court ordinarily does that work?

Reveal answers & explanations
  • A trial court — best answer

    Yes. Trial courts receive evidence and decide facts. A federal District Court or California Superior Court is a trial court in these simplified pathways.

  • An intermediate appellate court

    An appellate court generally reviews a challenged decision and its record. It ordinarily does not receive a new lawsuit for a trial on the facts.

  • A supreme court

    A supreme court generally reviews selected legal questions. Special original proceedings exist, but an ordinary lawsuit usually begins in a trial court.

Civil law and criminal law

In this lesson: Recognize the purpose of a civil claim and a criminal charge.

Look at what the proceeding asks the court to decide. The same event can lead to both a civil case and a separate criminal case.

Liability or another civil remedy

Civil cases

Often ask whether a party is legally responsible for harm or must provide another remedy. Examples include breach of contract, personal injury, and employment discrimination.

Possible remedies include money damages, an injunction—a court order to do or stop something—or another form of civil relief.

Guilt of a charged crime

Criminal cases

Ask whether the government has proved the defendant guilty of a charged crime. Examples include charges of theft, assault, or fraud.

A conviction may lead to a fine, probation, or incarceration. A charge alone does not establish guilt, and a case need not end in conviction.

Optional knowledge check

Civil or criminal?

2 questions · feedback after each choice

Try an answer, revise it, or reveal the explanation. No score or timer. Answers stay in this open page only.

Civil or criminal?
A customer sues a repair business, claiming it broke their contract and asking to recover the resulting loss. How is this case described?

Reveal answers & explanations
  • Civil — best answer

    Yes. This is a private contract claim seeking civil relief. Whether the customer can prove it is a separate question.

  • Criminal

    The scenario describes a contract lawsuit for compensation, not a government prosecution for a charged crime.

Civil or criminal?
A prosecutor charges a person with theft and asks the court to determine guilt under the criminal law. How is this case described?

Reveal answers & explanations
  • Civil

    This is a prosecution seeking a determination of criminal guilt. A separate civil claim could arise from the same event.

  • Criminal — best answer

    Yes. The government is prosecuting a charged crime. It must prove guilt; the accusation itself is not proof.

How much proof is required?

In this lesson: Match a proof standard to the decision being made.

A burden of proof concerns who must establish a fact. A standard of proof concerns how convincing the evidence must be. The applicable rule depends on the issue and stage of the case.

Civil does not always mean preponderance: some civil issues require clear and convincing evidence, a more demanding standard.

Common in civil cases

Preponderance of the evidence

The fact to be proved is more likely true than not true. Think of the evidence tipping the balance, rather than counting which side has more witnesses.

A civil jury may decide whether a claimed fact is more likely true than not, using this standard when the governing law requires it.

Required for criminal conviction

Beyond a reasonable doubt

The government must prove every element of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This is substantially more demanding than preponderance, but it does not require eliminating every imaginable doubt.

The jury must be firmly convinced of guilt after considering the evidence and any lack of evidence. Do not assign this standard a numerical percentage.

A separate law-enforcement threshold

Probable cause

Known facts, considered together, must support the reasonable belief or fair probability required for the proposed action. The precise question differs for an arrest or a search warrant.

For a search warrant, a judge considers whether there is a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found in the place to be searched. This does not decide trial guilt.

What about other standards?

Some civil issues require clear and convincing evidence: proof that makes the fact highly probable. This is more demanding than preponderance. Different claims, defenses, and proceedings can allocate burdens differently.

A lawful search or arrest involves requirements beyond naming a proof standard. These examples identify concepts; they do not determine whether a particular police action is lawful.

Optional knowledge check

Which proof standard fits?

3 questions · feedback after each choice

Try an answer, revise it, or reveal the explanation. No score or timer. Answers stay in this open page only.

Which standard fits?
In a fictional civil trial, the judge instructs jurors to decide whether a disputed fact is more likely true than not. Which standard is being used?

Reveal answers & explanations
  • Preponderance of the evidence — best answer

    Yes. Preponderance asks whether the fact to be proved is more likely true than not. It is common in civil cases.

  • Beyond a reasonable doubt

    That applies in a different setting. For a criminal conviction, the government must prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

  • Probable cause

    That applies in a different setting. Probable cause addresses the factual basis for a particular law-enforcement action, such as issuing a search warrant. It does not establish guilt.

Which standard fits?
The government asks a jury to convict a defendant of a charged crime. Which standard must it meet for every element?

Reveal answers & explanations
  • Preponderance of the evidence

    That applies in a different setting. Preponderance asks whether the fact to be proved is more likely true than not. It is common in civil cases.

  • Beyond a reasonable doubt — best answer

    Yes. For a criminal conviction, the government must prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

  • Probable cause

    That applies in a different setting. Probable cause addresses the factual basis for a particular law-enforcement action, such as issuing a search warrant. It does not establish guilt.

Which standard fits?
A judge considers whether the facts support a search warrant for a specified place where evidence of a crime may be found. Which threshold is relevant?

Reveal answers & explanations
  • Preponderance of the evidence

    That applies in a different setting. Preponderance asks whether the fact to be proved is more likely true than not. It is common in civil cases.

  • Beyond a reasonable doubt

    That applies in a different setting. For a criminal conviction, the government must prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

  • Probable cause — best answer

    Yes. Probable cause addresses the factual basis for a particular law-enforcement action, such as issuing a search warrant. It does not establish guilt.

Legal authority: what must courts follow?

In this lesson: Separate the type of a legal source from its force in a particular case.

Not all legal sources have the same authority. Ask two separate questions: What type of source is this? Must this court follow it on this issue?

Jurisdiction means the legal system or scope of authority involved. A holding is a legal determination necessary to the court’s decision. The issue, court hierarchy, and current status help determine whether a holding controls.

California limits the use of unpublished and depublished appellate opinions. Published opinions under Supreme Court review generally have only persuasive force while review is pending, subject to court orders and a limited conflict rule. Open the California details below before relying on one.

What type of source is it?

Primary authority

Law itself: constitutions, statutes, regulations, and judicial decisions. Being primary does not automatically make a source binding in every case.

Example: a court opinion from another state remains primary authority even when it does not control a California court.

Secondary authority

Materials that explain or analyze law, such as legal encyclopedias, treatises, and law review articles. They can help locate or understand primary law.

Example: a legal article explains a court decision. The article is commentary, not binding law.

What force does it have here?

Mandatory, or binding

Authority the deciding court must follow on the issue. For example, a current, controlling California Supreme Court holding binds California lower courts. A precedential federal circuit holding binds district courts within that circuit on the federal issue it controls.

Persuasive

Reasoning a court may consider without being required to follow it. Examples include a decision from another state on a similar question, a nonbinding opinion that citation rules allow the court to consider, or a respected treatise. Persuasive material can still be influential.

Four kinds of binding authority
1

Constitutions

Establish government powers, structure, and rights. The U.S. Constitution and applicable state constitutional provisions govern within their scope; state law cannot override controlling federal law.

2

Statutes

Laws enacted by Congress or a state legislature. A valid statute binds within its jurisdiction and subject matter; first check whether it applies to the situation.

3

Regulations

Rules adopted by authorized agencies. Valid, applicable regulations have legal force within their governing authority. An explanatory webpage or policy statement is not automatically a regulation.

4

Controlling judicial holdings

Applicable holdings from a court whose precedent binds the deciding court. Check the court hierarchy, legal issue, publication status, and whether later law or a decision has changed the rule.

California decisions: publication and review matter

A published California Court of Appeal holding generally binds every California Superior Court on a point it controls, not just courts in the same appellate district. It does not bind another Court of Appeal or the California Supreme Court. If published appellate decisions conflict, a Superior Court must choose between them, subject to controlling higher authority.

Unpublished California Court of Appeal and Superior Court appellate-division opinions generally cannot be cited or relied on in another action. Rule 8.1115 provides limited exceptions, including certain situations involving the effect of an earlier judgment or the same criminal or disciplinary defendant. Depublished opinions are generally subject to this restriction too; they are not ordinary persuasive substitutes for published authority.

A grant of California Supreme Court review does not itself depublish a published Court of Appeal opinion. While review is pending, the general rule is persuasive use only, with the grant and later Supreme Court action noted. Court orders can change that effect. Under the Supreme Court’s standing order, a review-granted opinion may also establish a conflict in authority; a Superior Court may choose a side, including the review-granted opinion’s position on that conflicting issue.

After the Supreme Court decides the case or dismisses review, Rule 8.1115 generally restores the published appellate opinion’s binding precedential effect, except for portions inconsistent with or disapproved by the Supreme Court, unless the Supreme Court orders otherwise. Always check the current opinion, disposition, publication status, and any specific order.

Optional knowledge check

Binding or persuasive?

3 questions · feedback after each choice

Try an answer, revise it, or reveal the explanation. No score or timer. Answers stay in this open page only.

Binding or persuasive?
A California Superior Court faces a state-law question. A current California Supreme Court holding controls that same question, with no relevant later change. How must the trial court treat it?

Reveal answers & explanations
  • Binding — best answer

    Yes. A controlling holding of California’s highest court binds California lower courts on that state-law issue.

  • Persuasive only

    This is controlling higher-court authority, not an optional comparison. The trial court must follow the applicable holding.

Identify both type and force
A California court considers an opinion from another state addressing a similar state-law question. The scenario supplies no rule making that other state’s decision controlling. What is the best description?

Reveal answers & explanations
  • Primary and automatically binding

    The opinion is primary authority, but its source type does not make it binding on every court. Here it is ordinarily persuasive.

  • Primary and ordinarily persuasive — best answer

    Yes. It is a judicial decision, so it is primary authority. Its reasoning may help, but it ordinarily does not control the California court in this scenario.

  • Secondary because it comes from elsewhere

    Location affects possible force, not source type. A judicial opinion remains primary authority even outside the system where it controls.

Identify both type and force
A law review article offers a thoughtful explanation of a legal rule. What kind of authority is the article itself?

Reveal answers & explanations
  • Primary and binding

    The article analyzes law; it does not enact a statute or issue a judicial holding. Verify the primary authorities it discusses.

  • Secondary and potentially persuasive — best answer

    Yes. The analysis may be useful or influential, but the article itself is not binding law.

  • It cannot help with legal research

    Secondary sources can explain difficult issues and point to primary sources. Use them thoughtfully, then check the governing law.

A quick authority check

  1. Identify the type

    Is this law itself, or an explanation of law?

  2. Match the setting

    Which court, jurisdiction, issue, and facts are involved?

  3. Check its status

    Is it current, applicable, and citable? Has later authority changed it?

  4. Decide its role

    Does it control, offer persuasive reasoning, or help locate better authority?

Five things to take with you
  • Government branches have different main jobs, with checks on one another’s power.
  • Trial courts determine facts; appellate courts review challenged decisions.
  • Civil liability and criminal guilt ask different questions.
  • Proof standards depend on the issue and stage of the proceeding.
  • Identify both the type of a legal source and its force in the particular case.