概括介紹這一案例：立法部門--國會--通過了2005年的「失竊英勇法」，懲罰那些謊報他們獲得了高度軍事榮譽的人。

2012年，美國最高法院司法部門裁定該法案違憲，因為它侵犯了受「第一修正案」保護的言論自由權。

行政部門--五角大樓和總統--在最高法院作出決定後一個月內採取了行動，建立了一個由政府資助的國家獎章數據庫--分階段進行--以便核查軍事榮譽。

Separation of Powers in Action - U.S. v. Alvarez  The U.S. Constitution establishes three separate but equal branches of government: the legislative branch (makes the law), the executive branch (enforces the law), and the judicial branch (interprets the law). The Framers structured the government in this way to prevent one branch of government from becoming too powerful, and to create a system of checks and balances.

Under this system of checks and balances, there is an interplay of power among the three branches. Each branch has its own authority, but also must depend on the authority of the other branches for the government to function.

U.S. v. Alvarez is an excellent example of how the three branches each exercise their authority.

The Legislative Branch – Congress – passed the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, punishing those who misrepresent that they have received high military honors.                                         

The Judicial Branch – the Supreme Court of the United States – ruled in 2012 (link is external) that the Act was unconstitutional because it infringed on the right to free speech protected by the First Amendment

The Executive Branch – the Pentagon and the President – took action within a month of the Supreme Court's decision establishing a government-funded national database of medal citations – phased in over time – to enable verification of military honors.

美國的三權分立經常被批評為效率低下；當總統和控制國會的反對黨意見不同時，兩者間的不合作可能會使得立法程序停頓。英國作家貝基哈特在其於1867年出版的書籍《英國憲法》（The English Constitution）裡批評了美國的這種制度，並特別提及了詹森任期內的事件。部份人提出美國應實行議會制，可以提高辦事效率。議會制的支持者包括了美國總統威爾遜。貝基哈特還將英國議會制與美國的制度作出比較時這樣寫道：

「       英國憲法，一言以蔽之，是建基在單一最高權力的基礎上，並使其行之有效：而美國憲法，則建基於分散最高權力的原則，並希望通由這種繁鎖的結構來掩蓋其低下性。      」

但是，很多政治學家認為權力分立使美國🇺🇸更卓越！約翰·金敦（John Kingdon）認為，權力分立促進了美國獨特的政治結構發展，即美國國內的利益集團參與權力制衡，影響政策制定。三支機構彼此平等卻又彼此制衡，從而有效防止任何一機構濫用權力。