Selective friendship: Strategic analysis of amicus curiae functionality

Authors

  • Débora Costa Ferreira Instituto Brasiliense de Direito Público

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21875/tjc.v5i2.25652

Keywords:

Constitutional law, Amicus curiae, Constitutional jurisdiction, Strategic analysis

Abstract

ABSTRACT:


This paper analyzes strategically and empirically if the amicus curiae has effectively performed the functions presented by doctrinal and jurisprudential discourse of democratically legitimizing and expansion of court’s background information, or if this figure has served to other interests. The results of the empirical analysis – using data from judicial review processes with participation of at least one amicus curiae judged by STF between 1990 and 2017 – corroborate the standards identified in the strategic analysis and reveal that the Brazilian Supreme Court makes strategic use of amicus curiae, citing more of those types that bring greater diffuse support with public opinion to the Court (amicus curiae representatives of civil society) and to be more influenced by participants with greater institutional bargaining power and argumentative and informative credibility (amicus curiae governmental organizations). It follows, therefore, that the Court is “friendlier” to some types of amicus curiae than to others

Author Biography

Débora Costa Ferreira, Instituto Brasiliense de Direito Público

Débora Costa Ferreira é mestre em Direito Constitucional pelo Instituto Brasiliense de Direito Público - IDP (2017), especialista em Direito Constitucional no Instituto Brasiliense de Direito Público - IDP (2015), graduada em Direito pelo Centro Universitário de Brasília (2014) e em Ciências Econômicas pela Universidade de Brasília (2014). É auditora Federal de Controle Externo no Tribunal de Contas da União. Professora de Análise Econômica do Direito no IDP. Experiência profissional em Direito Constitucional, Direito Regulatório e Economia.

References

ACKERMAN, Bruce. We the people. Estados Unidos: Harvard University Press, 1991.

ALVES, P. O Tempo como Ferramenta de Decisão no STF: Um Mapeamento da Seletividade do Tribunal nos Tempos Processuais das Ações Diretas de Inconstitucionalidade. Monografia – Sociedade Brasileira de Direito Público, São Paulo, 2006.

ARGUELHES, Diego Werneck. Supremo: porto seguro para ministros políticos. Jota, 07/02/2017. Disponível em: http://jota.info/colunas/supra/disfuncao-stf-encoraja-escolha-de-alexandre-de-moraes-07022017#.WJsW5UVrSw4.facebook. Acesso em 07/02/2017.

BAKER, Dennis. Not quite supreme: the Courts and coordinate constitutional construction. Canada: MCGill-Queen’s University Press, 2010.

BARKER, Lucius J.. Third Partiesin Litigation: A Systemic view of the Judicial Function, J. POL. V 41, n. 41, 1967.

BESON, Joseph Fred. The Court Needs its Friends. V. 70. N. 8, ABA Journal, Agosto, 1984.

BICKEL, Alexander. The Least Dangerous Branchs: The Supreme Court at the bar of the politics. Indianopolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1962.

BIX, Brian H. New Legal Realism and the Explanation of Judicial Behavior: Doctrine, Data, and High Theory. Legal Studies Research Paper Series Research Paper No. 14-42, 2009.

CALDEIRA, Gregory A. Neither the purse nor the sword: dynamics of confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review. V.80. n. 4.,1986, pp. 1209-26.

COELHO, Inocêncio Mártires. As ideias de Peter Häberle e a abertura da interpretação constitucional no direito brasileiro, Revista de Informação Legislativa, n. 137, 1998. pp. 157-164. Disponível em: http://www2.senado.leg.br/bdsf/item/id/343.

COLLINS JR., Paul M. Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation. Law and Society Review. V. 38, n. 807, 2004. pp. 812-813.

CROSS, Frank B., Political Science and the New Legal Realism: A Case of Unfortunate Interdisciplinary Ignorance, V. 92. N. 76. Northwestern University Law Review, 1997.

DAHL, Robert A. Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker. Journal of Public Law. V. 6, 1957. pp. 279-95.

DEL PRÁ, Carlos Gustavo Rodrigues. Amicus Curiae: instrumento de participação democrática e de aperfeiçoamento da prestação jurisdicional. Curitiba: Juruá, 2008.

EASTON, David. A systems analysis of political life. Nova Iorque: John Wiley & Son Inc., 1965.

ELSTER, John. Arguing and bargaining in the Federal Convention and the Assemblée Constituante. Working paper n. 4. Universidade de Chicago: Center for the study of constitutionalism in eastern Europe, 1991.

EPSTEIN, Lee, KNIGHT, Jack. Mapping Out the Strategic Terrain: The Informational Role of Amici Curiae. IN: CLAYTON, C. GILLMAN, H., eds., Supreme Court Decision Making: New Institutionalist Approaches. Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press, 1999.

EPSTEIN, Lee; ROWLAND C. K.. Debunking the Myth of Interest Group Invincibility in the Courts. American Political Science Rev. v. 85, 1991. pp. 205-17.

ESKRIDGE JR, William N. Overriding supreme court statutory decisions. Yale Law Journal, v. 101, n. 2, 1991. p. 331-417.

FERREIRA, Pedro Fernando de Almeida Nery. Modelos econométricos podem prever decisões judiciais? Um probit para julgamentos do STF em ADIs. Apresentação no VI Congresso da Associação Brasileira de Direito e Economia, 2013.

FERREIRA, Débora Costa. BRANCO, Paulo Gustavo Gonet. Amicus curiae em números. Nem amigo da corte, nem amigo da parte? Revista de Direito Brasileira, v. 16. n. 7. Jan./Abr. 2017. pp. 169-185.

FRIEDMAN, Barry. The will of the people: How Public Opinion Has Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution. Nova Iorque: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2009.

GARGARELLA, Roberto. El nuevo constitucionalismo dialógico frente al sistema de los frenos y contrapesos. In: GARGARELLA, Roberto (comp.). Por una justicia dialógica: El Poder Judicial como promotor de la deliberación democrática. Buenos Aires: Siglo Veintiuno, 2014. pp. 2475-2480.

GIBSON, J. L.; CALDEIRA, G. A.; SPENCE, L. K. Measuring Attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science, V. 47, 2003, pp. 354–367. doi:10.1111/1540-5907.00025.

GODOY, Miguel Gaulano. As audiências públicas e o amicus curiae influenciam as decisões dos ministros do Supremo Tribunal Federal? E por que isso deve(ria) importar? Revista da Faculdade de Direito – UFPR, Curitiba, vol. 60, n. 3, 2015.

GRIMM, Dieter, Verfassungserichtsbarkeit - Funktion und Funktionsgrenzen in demokratischem Staat, in: Jus-Didaktik, Munique: Heft 4, 1977.

GROSSKOPF, Anke; MONDAK, Jeffrey J.. Do attitudes toward specific Supreme Court decisions matter? The impact of webster and Texas v. Johnson on Public confidence in the Supreme Court. Political Research Quaterly. V. 51, n. 3, 1998. pp. 633-654.

HÄBERLE, Peter. Hermenêutica Constitucional. A sociedade aberta de intérpretes da Constituição: contribuição para a interpretação pluralista e “procedimental” da Constituição. Trad. Gilmar Ferreira Mendes. Porto Alegre: Sergio Antonio Fabris, 1997.

HÄBERLE, Peter. Pluralismo y constitución: estudios de teoria constitucional de la sociedade abierta. Trad. Emilio Milkunda-Franco. Madrid: Tecnos, 2002. p. 98-99.

HARPER, Fowler V.; ETHERINGTON, Edwin D.. Lobbyists Before the Court. U. PA. L. REV. V. 101, n. 8, 1953. pp.1172-1173.

HIRSCHL, Ran. The judicialization of politics. In: WHITTINGTON, Keith;

KELEMEN, R. Daniel; CALDEIRA, Gregory. The Oxford handboock of law and politics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 124-129.

HOEKSTRA, Valerie. The Supreme Court and local public opinion. American Political Science Review. V. 94, n.1, 2000, pp. 89-100.

IVERS, Gregg. O’CONNOR, Karen. Friends as Foes: The Amicus Curiae Participation and Effectiveness of the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans for Effective Law Enforcement in Criminal Cases. Law & Policy. V. 9. N. 161. 1987. pp.1969-1982.

KEARNEY, J.; MERRILL, T. The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Supreme Court. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, v. 148, 2000. pp. 743-855.

KRISLOV, Samuel. The Amicus Curiae Brief: From Friendship to Advocacy. V. 72. Yale Law Journal, 1963.

LIPSET, Seymour Martin; SCHNEIDER, William. The confidence gap: business, labor, and government in the public mind. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1987.

MARSHALL, Thomas. Public opinion and the Supreme Court. Nova Iorque: Longman, 1989.

MAMARI FILHO, Luís Sérgio Soares. A comunidade aberta de intérpretes da Constituição: o amicus curiae como estratégia de democratização da busca do significado das normas. Rio de Janeiro: Lumen Juris, 2005.

MEDINA, Damares. Amicus curiae: amigo da corte ou amigo da parte? São Paulo: Saraiva, 2010.

MENDES, Gilmar Ferreira; RUFINO, André do Vale. O pensamento de Peter Häberle na jurisprudência do Supremo Tribunal Federal. Observatório Constitucional. Ano 2, 2009.

MENDES, Gilmar Ferreira. Direitos fundamentais e controle de constitucionalidade. 2a ed. São Paulo: Celso Bastos editor, 1999.

MENDES, Gilmar Ferreira. Argüição de descumprimento de preceito fundamental: comentários à Lei n. 9.882, de 3-12-1999, São Paulo: Saraiva, 2007.

MENDES, Conrado Hubner. Direitos fundamentais, separação dos poderes e deliberação democrática. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2011.

MCLAUCHLAN, Judithanne Scourfield. Congressional Participation as Amicus Curiae before the U.S. Supreme Court. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005.

MORAES, Alexandre. Direito Constitucional. 33. ed. rev. e atual. até a EC no 95, de 15 de dezembro de 2016 – São Paulo: Atlas, 2017.

MONDAK, Jeffery J. SMITHEY, Shannon Ishiyama. The dynamics of public support for the Supreme Court. Journal of Politics. V. 59, n. 4, 1997. pp. 1114-11142.

MORRIS, Thomas R.. States Before the U.S. Supreme Court: State Attorneys General as Amicus Curiae. Judicature. V. 71, 1987. pp. 298-305.

PILDES, Richard H. Is the Supreme Court a “Majoritarian Institution”? New York University School of Law, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series. Working Paper n° 11-01, jan. 2011. Disponível em: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1733169.

SALOKAR, Rebecca Mae. The solicitor general: the politics of law. Solicitor General: the politics of law. American Political Science Review, 1992. pp. 145-50.

SEGAL, Jeffrey A.. Amicus Curiae Briefs by the Solicitor General During the Warren and Burger Courts: A Research Note. Political Research Quarterly. V. 41. N. 135, 1988.

SEGAL, Jeffrey A.; SPEATH, Harold j. Spaeth. The supreme court and the atittudinal model, 1993.

SCALIA, Antonin. The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, University of Chicago Law Review: Vol. 56 : Iss. 4 , 1989.

SONGER, Donald R.; SEEHAN, Reginald S.. Interest Group Success in the Courts: Amicus participation in the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly. Vol. 46, 1994.

TAVARES. André Ramos. Tribunal e jurisdição constitucional. São Paulo: Celso Bastos editor, 1998.

TRUMAN, David B. The governmental process. The Oxford Handbook of Classics in Public Policy and Administration,1951, DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199646135.013.16.

TYLER, Tom R.; MITCHELL, Gregory. Legitimacy and the empowerment of discretionary legal authority: The United States Supreme Court and abortion rights. Duke Law Journal. V. 43, n. 1994, p. 703-815.

Capa bicolor dividida em seção laranja e seção branca. No cabeçalho está escrito Teoria Jurídica Contemporânea e no canto inferior direito há logo da UFRJ com busto de Minerv.

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2020-11-18

Issue

Vol. 5 No. 2 (2020)

Section

Seção Especial

License

The authors who publish in this journal agree with the following terms:

1. The authors maintain the copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License that allows the sharing of the work with recognition of authorship and initial publication in this journal.

2. Authors are allowed to assume additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (e.g., publishing in an institutional repository or as a book chapter), with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.

3. Authors are allowed and encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or as a personal page) at any point before or during the editorial process, as this may generate productive changes, as well as increase the impact and citation of the published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Brazil License.