The primary responsibility of the Supreme Court is to discuss and settle all matters that warrant federal attention. As a result, the Supreme Court is an essential entity in influencing public policy. To do this, the Court can govern in a manner that can be described as either judicial activism or judicial restraint. Miranda v Arizona 1966 is a case pertaining to the area of public policy that regards the rights of the accused, wherein the Court followed a policy of judicial activism. Similarly, the Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States 1964 case concerns the matter of civil rights...
a direct relation to the interstate flow of goods and people.

The Supreme Court holds a powerful influence on public policy. When establishing policy, the Court is said to be following a role of judicial activism. When simply reaffirming a policy, it is said to be following a role of judicial restraint. In the case of Miranda v Arizona, the Court's actions can be classified under judicial activism. Similarly, in the case of Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States, the same distinction can be made of the Court's actions, of following a role of judicial activism as well.