Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka and its influence on the the brazilian structural injunction:
restricted and strategic use
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65674/rev-trf3.v34i158.108Keywords:
U.S. Supreme Court, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Structural injunction, Strategic litigation, InfluenceAbstract
This study has as its problem the analysis of the influence of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka for the construction of the Brazilian structural injunction, having as assumption the viability of this procedural way to be used in our legal system. The hypothesis of the research is that, in light of relevant procedural aspects extracted from Brown, the structural injunction can be employed in Brazil, as long as in a restricted and moderate manner, for which it is necessary: 1) to verify a state of affairs (unconstitutional or illegal) or eloquent nonconformity, of extreme gravity and unwanted by the majority of society exhausted with the structural problem and with executive and legislative authorities (even if supported by segments of that same society) be verified; 2) to selected a strategic case, combining elements of the multi-polarity of those involved and the judicial structure itself, skillful and culturally prepared for the construction of negotiations, with intra and inter-institutional dialogue capable of defining viable solutions and systematically monitored in successive equally dialogic phases, allowing for reinforcements, complements and revisions; and 3) set a clear and defined objective, but flexible, so that its processing does not get lost in undetermined new goals and measures, so that it must have progressive phases (from the general to the particular) with the delegation of minor decision-making and executive attributions to ordinary instances. The widespread use of this procedural path, driven by voluntarism, activism and the like, can disallow this useful mechanism of judicial protection. To prove the hypothesis, the inductive method is employed.
References
ANDRÉA, Gianfranco Faggin Mastro. Estado de coisas inconstitucional no Brasil. 2. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Lumen Juris, 2021.
ARENHART, Sérgio Cruz; OSNA, Gustavo; JOBIM, Marco Félix. Curso de processo estrutural. São Paulo: Thomson Reuters Brasil, 2021.
ARENHART, Sérgio Cruz. Processo multipolar, participação e representação de interesses concorrentes. In: ARENHART, Sérgio Cruz; JOBIM, Marco Félix (Orgs.). Processos estruturais. 3. ed. rev., atual. e ampl. Salvador: JusPodivm, 2021, p. 1071-1096.
ARENHART, Sérgio Cruz. Processos estruturais no direito brasileiro: reflexões a partir do caso da ACP do carvão. In: ARENHART, Sérgio Cruz; JOBIM, Marco Félix (Orgs.). Processos estruturais. 3. ed. rev., atual. e ampl. Salvador: JusPodivm, 2021, p. 1047-1069.
AZEVEDO, Celia Maria Marinho. Abolicionismo: Estados Unidos e Brasil, uma história comparada (século XIX). São Paulo: Annablume, 2003.
BAUERMANN, Desirê. Cumprimento das obrigações de fazer ou não fazer: estudo comparado: Brasil e Estados Unidos. Porto Alegre: S.A. Fabris, 2012.
BICKEL, Alexander M. The least dangerous branch. The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978.
BICKEL, Alexander M. The original understanding and the segregation decision. Harvard Law Review, v. 69, n. 1, p. 1-65, nov. 1955.
BITTKER, Boris I. Interpreting the Constitution: is the intente of the framers controlling? If not, what is? Harvard Journal Of Law & Public Policy, v. 19, p. 09-54, 1996-1997.
BLACKMON, Douglas A. Slavery by another name: the re-enslavement of black americans from the civil war to world war II., 2008.
BONVENTRE, Vincent Martin. Judicial activism, judge’s speech, and merit selection: conventional wisdom and nonsense. Albany Law Review, v. 61, p. 564, 2005.
BRASIL, Sérgio Augusto Veloso. A cláusula da igual proteção (equal protection): abordagem tradicional pela Suprema Corte Americana. In: FREITAS, Riva Sobrado de; SILVA, Camila Barreto Pinto; TOLEDO, Cláudia Mansani Queda de (Coords.). Constituição e democracia I [Recurso eletrônico on-line]. Florianópolis: CONPEDI, 2018. Disponível em: http://site.conpedi.org.br/publicacoes/0ds65m46/ggs4l47h/vK03flsBXI098Cp7.pdf. Acesso em: 03 mar. 2021.
CHAYES, Abram. The role of the judge in public law litigation. Harvard Law Review, v. 89, n. 7, 1976, p. 1281-1316.
CHEMERINSKY, Erwin. The case Against the supreme court. New York: Viking, 2014.
COTTRO, Robert J.; DIAMOND, Raymond T.; WARE, Leland B. Brown v. Board of Education: caste, culture, and the constitution. Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2003.
DANTAS, Eduardo Sousa. Ações estruturais e o estado de coisas inconstitucional: a tutela dos direitos fundamentais em casos de graves violações pelo Poder Público. Curitiba: Juruá, 2019.
FEELEY, Malcolm M.; RUBIN, Edward L. Judicial police making and the modern state: how the courts reformed america’s prisons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
FINKELMAN, Paul. Dred Scott v. Sandford. In: UROFSKY, Melvin I. (Ed.). The public debate over controversial Supreme Court decisions. Washington: CQ Press, 2006, p. 24-33. Disponível em: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1507086. Acesso em: 03 mar. 2021.
FISS, Owen. Direito como razão pública: processo, jurisdição e sociedade. Trad. Carlos Alberto de Salles. 2. ed. Curitiba: Juruá, 2017.
FISS, Owen M. The civil rights injunction. Bloomington/Indiana: Indiana University, 1978.
FISS, Owen M. The fate of an ideia whose time has come: antidiscrimination law in the second decade after Brown vs. Board of Education. University of Chicago Law Review, n. 742, 1973-1974.
FLETCHER, William A. The discretionary constitution: institutional remedies and judicial legitimacy. The Yale Law Journal, v. 91, n. 4, p. 635-697, mar. 1982.
FRANCISCO, José Carlos. Mutações para e pelo incompleto sistema de precedentes de teses em temas. In: FERREIRA FILHO, Manoel Gonçalves; LEAL, Roger Stiefelmann (Orgs.). A nova Constituição de 1988? Santo André : Dia a Dia Forense, 2021, v. 1, p. 50-76.
GALDINO, Matheus Souza. Processos estruturais: identificação, funcionamento e finalidade. Salvador: JusPodivm, 2020.
GILLESPIE, Nora. Charter remedies: The structural injunction. Advocates'. Quarterly, 11(2), 190-221, 1990.
GRINBERG, Keila. Alforria, direito e direitos no Brasil e nos Estado Unidos. Estudos Históricos, Rio de Janeiro, n. 27, p. 63-83, 2001.
GROSTEIN, Julio. Ativismo judicial: análise comparativa do direito constitucional brasileiro e norte-americano. São Paulo: Almedina, 2019.
JACKSON, Faith J. Dred Scott v. Sandford: a prelude to the civil war. Richmond Public Interest Law Review, v. 15, n. 2, p. 377-401, 2011.
Disponível em: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/pilr/vol15/iss2/3. Acesso em: 03 mar. 2021.
JOBIM, Marco Félix. Medidas estruturantes: da Suprema Corte estadunidense ao Supremo Tribunal Federal. Porto Alegre: Livraria do Advogado, 2013.
JOBIM, Marco Félix; ROCHA, Marcelo Hugo. Medidas estruturantes: origem em Brown v. Board of Education. In: ARENHART, Sérgio Cruz; JOBIM, Marco Félix (Orgs.). Processos estruturais. 3. ed. rev., atual. e ampl. Salvador: JusPodivm, 2021, p. 853-872.
KING, Thomas L. Performing Jim Crow: blackface performance and emancipation. Revista de Humanidades, n. 23, p. 75-94, 2014.
KLARMAN, Michael. Court, Congress and Civil Rights. In: DEVINS, Neil; WHITTINGTON, Keith E. (Eds.). Congress and Constitution. Durham: Duke University Press, 2005.
KLARMAN, Michael J. Brown v. Board of education and the civil rights movement. (abridged edition of from Jim Crow to civil rights: The Supreme Court and the struggle for racial equality). New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
KLARMAN, Michael J. Brown vs. Board of Education: law or politics? Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series, Research Paper n. 02-11, dez. 2002. Disponível em: http://ssrn.com/abstract=353361. Acesso em: 06 mar. 2021.
KLARMAN, Michael J. Response: Brown, originalism and the desegregation decisions – a response to Professor Mcconnell. Virginia Law Review, v. 81, n. 7, p. 1.881-1.936, out. 1995.
LEGAL INFORMATION INSTITUTE. Cornell University Law School. 20 de novembro de 2012. Disponível em: https://www.law.cornell.edu/. Acesso em: 03 mar. 2021.
LEVINSON, Sanford. The limited relevance of originalism in the actual performance of legal roles. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, v. 19, p. 495, 1995.
LOCKHART, Willian B.; KAMISAR, Yale; CHOPER, Jesse H.; SHIFFRIN, Steven H.; FALLON Jr., Richard H. Constitucional Law: cases comments-questions. 18 ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Pub., 1996.
MCCONNELL, Michael W. Originalism ante the desegregation decisions. Virginia Law Review, v. 81, n. 4, p. 984-986, maio 1995.
MCNEESE, Tim. Plessy v. Ferguson: separate but equal. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 2007.
NEUBORNE, Burt. The binding quality of Supreme Court precedente. Tulane Law Review, v. 61, p. 988, 1987.
POSNER, Richard A. Legal formalism, legal realism, ant the interpretation of statutes and the Constitution. Case Western Reserve Law Review, v. 37, n. 2, p. 213-216, 1987.
PUGA, Mariela. La litis estructural em el caso Brown v. Board of Education. In: ARENHART, Sérgio Cruz; JOBIM, Marco Félix (Orgs.). Processos estruturais. 3. ed. rev., atual. e ampl. Salvador: JusPodivm, 2021, p. 91-145.
PUGA, Mariela. Litígio estructural. Tesis Doctoral. Faculdade de Derecho de La Universidad de Buenos Aires, 2013.
ROSENBERG, Gerald. The hollow hope. Can Courts bring about social change? Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991.
SOUTO, João Carlos. Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos: principais decisões. Rio de Janeiro: Lumen Juris, 2008.
STURM, Susan. The legacy and the future of corrections litigation. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Philadelphia, v. 142, n. 2, dez. 1993.
TUSHNET, Mark. The NAACP’s legal strategy against segregated education: 1925-1950. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2005.
VILE, John R. Essential Supreme Court decisions: summaries of leading cases in U.S. constitucional law. 15. ed. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2010.
VIOLIN, Jordão. Holt v. Sarver e a reforma do sistema prisional no Arkansas. In: ARENHART, Sérgio Cruz; JOBIM, Marco Félix (Orgs.). Processos estruturais. 3. ed. rev., atual. e ampl. Salvador: JusPodivm, 2021, p. 638-686.
VIOLIN, Jordão. Processos estruturais em perspectiva comparada: a experiência norte americana na resolução de conflitos policêntricos. Tese (Doutorado). Universidade Federal do Paraná, Setor de Ciências Jurídicas, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito. Curitiba. 2019.
VITORELLI, Edilson. Processo civil estrutural: teoria e prática. Salvador: JusPodivm, 2021.
WEAVER, Russel. The rise and decline of structural remedies. San Diego Law Review, v. 41, 2004.
WHITE, John Valery. Brown v. Board of Education and the Origins of the Activist Insecurity in Civil Rights Law. Ohio Northen University Law Review, v. 28, p. 345, 2002.
ZAFFARONI, Eugenio Raúl. Poder Judiciário: crises, acertos e desacerto. Trad. Juarez Tavares. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, 1995.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 José Carlos Francisco, Gianfranco Faggin Mastro Andréa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
By submitting the academic text to the Journal of the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region (Revista do Tribunal Regional Federal da 3ª Região), the authors declare to be the holders of the copyright, responding exclusively for any claims related to such rights; as well as guaranteeing the non-existence of any breach of academic ethics.
The authors retain the copyright and grant the Journal of the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region the right of publication, without encumbrance and without limitations as to term, territory, or any other.
The concepts and opinions expressed in the signed works are the sole responsibility of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the position of this Journal, nor of the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region.
