Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Articles

Vol. 3 No. 1 (2016): Brazilian Journal of Empirical Legal Studies

Deference to the attorney general? The probability of success of the AG on the direct actions of unconstitutionality

DOI
https://doi.org/10.19092/reed.v3i1.65
Submitted
July 17, 2015
Published
2016-01-31

Abstract

The Brazilian equivalent of the Attorney General, as a brief historical analysis shows, plays an essential role in concentrated constitutional review. However, empirical studies of its performance remain scarce. Our goal is to test the AGs track record in Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality (ADIs) at the Brazilian Supreme Court. We use a data set obtained from the Supreme Court in Numbers project’s database in order to run regressions with different models. The hypothesis we tested is that there is no statistically significant relationship between the performance of the AG as plaintiff in concentrated constitutional review and the outcome of the cases. This hypothesis was found to be disproved:  ADIs started by the AG, as well as those proposed by representatives of the Executive branch, have, in fact, greater statistical probability of success.

References

  1. Barros, J. P. A. (1985). O Ministério Público e a representação por inconstitucionalidade de lei ou ato normativo federal ou estadual. Revista de Informação Legislativa, 87, 269-318.
  2. Braga, P. (2008). O Ministério Público na Constituição de 1988. Revista de Informação Legislativa, 179, 57-80.
  3. Clayton, C.W. (1992). The Politics of Justice: The Attorney General and the Making of Legal Policy. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
  4. Constituição Federal da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988 (2015).Brasília. Acesso em 01 novembro 2015, de http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Constituicao/Constituicao.htm
  5. Deen, R, Ignagni, J. & Meernik, J. (2003). The Solicitor General as Amicus 1953 – 2000 How Influential? Juricature, 87, 60 – 71.
  6. Falcão, J. Moraes, A. & Hartmann, I. (2015). O Supremo e o Ministério Público. IV Relatório Supremo em Números.
  7. Mcguire, K. (1998). Explaining Executive Success in the U.S. Supreme Court, Political Research Quarterly, 51, 505-526.
  8. Mendes, G.F. (1997). Considerações sobre o papel do Procurador-Geral da República no controle abstrato de normas sob a Constituição de 1967/69: proposta de releitura. Revista de Informação Legislativa, 135, 141-152.
  9. Norman-Major, K. A. (1993-1994). Solicitor General: Executive Policy Agendas and the Court. Albany Law Review, 57, 1081-1109.
  10. Oliveira, L. (2007). A motivação para agir dos legitimados: um limite invisível ao controle concentrado de constitucionalidade. Revista de Informação Legislativa, 173, 145-160.
  11. Segal, J. A; Reedy, C. D. (1998). The Supreme Court and Sex Discrimination: The Role of the Solicitor General. The Western Political Quarterly, 3, 553-568.
  12. ________ (1990). Supreme Court Support for the Solicitor General: The Effect of Presidential Appointments. The Western Political Quarterly, 1, 137-152.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.