Advogado Completo: Sincronização Automática executada pelo autor - Dicionário Brasileiro Linguagem Jurídica

2026-05-20T05:06:11Z

Sincronização Automática executada pelo autor - Dicionário Brasileiro Linguagem Jurídica

Página nova

{{Info/Verbete Jurídico
|termo = marbury v. madison
|classe_terminologica = Direito Comparado
|nivel_tecnico = Profissional
|idioma_origem = Inglês
|areas_do_direito = Direito Internacional, Direito Comparado, Inglês Jurídico
|jurisdicao = EUA/Brasil
|semantic_id = marcilio:marbury-v-madison
}}
{{Progresso do texto}}

== Significado Prático ==
#marbury v. #madison = precedente de 1803 da US\nSupreme Court (SCOTUS) que estabeleceu o\ncontrole de constitucionalidade (judicial review).\n\nPronúncia correta: marBÉri ou MÁrbri\nversus Mædəsən. Silaba tônica em negrito.\n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison\n\nMarbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803),\n• was a landmark[1] U.S. Supreme Court case\nthat established the\n• principle of judicial review in the United\nStates,\n• meaning that American courts have the\npower to strike down laws, statutes, and\nsome government actions that\n• violate the Constitution of the United States.\n• Decided in 1803, Marbury remains the single\nmost important decision in American\nconstitutional law.[2]\n• The Court's landmark decision established\nthat the U.S. Constitution is actual "law",\n• not just a statement of political principles\nand ideals, and\n• helped define the boundary between the\nconstitutionally separate executive and\njudicial branches of the federal government.\n\n\nHolding:\n• Congress cannot pass laws\nthat are contrary to the\nConstitution, and\n• it is the role of the judiciary\nto interpret what the\nConstitution permits.\n\n_______________________\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/us/job-bias-catholic-\nschools-supreme-court.html\n\n\nJob Bias Laws Do Not Protect\nTeachers in Catholic Schools,\nSupreme Court Rules\nThe case was the court’s latest consideration of the\nrelationship between the government and religion.\n• The Supreme Court ruled on\nWednesday that\n• federal employment discrimination\nlaws\n• do not apply to teachers at church-\nrun schools\n• whose duties include religious\ninstruction.\n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe_Schoo\nl_v._Morrissey-Berru\n\nOur Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru,\n591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme\nCourt case involving the ministerial exception of\nfederal employment discrimination laws. The case\nextends from the Supreme Court's prior decision in\nHosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church &\nSchool v. Equal Employment Opportunity\nCommission[1] which created the ministerial\nexception based on the Establishment and Free\nExercise Clauses of the United States Constitution,\nasserting that federal discrimination laws\ncannot be applied to leaders of\nreligious organizations. The case, along with\nthe consolidated St. James School v. Biel (Docket 19-348),\nboth arose from rulings in the United States Court of\nAppeals for the Ninth Circuit that found that federal\ndiscrimination laws do apply to others within a religious\norganization that serve an important religious function but\nlack the title or training to be considered a religious leader\nunder Hosanna-Tabor. The religious organization\nchallenged that ruling on the basis of Hosanna-Tabor. The\nSupreme Court ruled in a 7–2 decision on July 8, 2020 that\n#reversed (reformou) the Ninth Circuit's ruling, affirming\nthat the principles of Hosanna-Tabor, that a person can be\nserving an important religious function even if not holding\nthe title or training of a religious leader, satisfied the\nministerial exception in employment discrimination.\n\nHolding:\n• The First Amendment ministerial\nexception\n\n• extends to the adjudication of Morrissey-\nBerru's and Biel's employment-\ndiscrimination claims.\n\n#Amendment 1; #First Amendment\n• Congress shall make no law respecting\nan\n• establishment of religion, or\n(#ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE)\n• prohibiting the free exercise\nthereof; or (#FREE EXERCISE\nCLAUSE)\n• abridging the freedom of\n• speech, or of\n• the press; or\n• the right of the people peaceably to\nassemble, and\n• to petition the Government for a\nredress of grievances.\n_______________________\n\n\n\nhttps://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/us/supreme-court-\nbirth-control-obamacare.html\n\nSupreme Court Upholds Trump\nAdministration Regulation Letting\nEmployers Opt Out of Birth\nControl Coverage\nThe regulation was the latest attempt to undermine\nthe “contraception mandate,” a signature initiative\nof the Obama administration.\n• The Supreme Court on Wednesday\n• upheld a Trump administration\nregulation that\n• lets employers with\no religious or\no moral\n• objections\n• limit women’s access to birth\ncontrol coverage\n\n• under the Affordable Care Act and\n• could result in as many as 126,000\nwomen losing contraceptive\ncoverage from their employers.\n\n\n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Sisters_of_the_Poor_Sain\nts_Peter_and_Paul_Home_v._Pennsylvania\n\nLittle Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home\nv. Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United\nStates Supreme Court case involving ongoing\nconflicts between the Patient Protection and\nAffordable Care Act (ACA) and the Religious\nFreedom Restoration Act (RFRA) over the ACA's\ncontraceptive mandate. The ACA exempts non-\nprofit religious organizations from complying with\nthe mandate, which for-profit religious\norganizations objected to.\n\nHolding\n• The Departments had the authority under\nthe ACA to promulgate the religious and\nmoral exemptions.\n• The rules promulgating the exemptions are\nfree from procedural defects.\n______________________\n\n\n\nhttps://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-\nbill/1308\n\n• Summary of the #Religious\nFreedom Restoration Act of\n1993 –\n• Prohibits any agency, department, or official\nof the United States or any State (the\ngovernment)\n• from substantially burdening\n• a person's exercise of religion\n• even if the burden results from a rule of\ngeneral applicability,\n• except that the government may\n• burden a person's exercise of religion\n• only if it demonstrates that application of\nthe burden to the person:\n\n\n• (1) #furthers (#promover; facilitar;\npropiciar; favorecer; alcançar) a\n#compelling governmental interest\n(interesse público #importante /\n#convincente / #persuasivo / #cogente /\n#imperativo / #urgente / #relevante); and\n\n• (2) is the least restrictive means of\nfurthering that compelling governmental\ninterest. → meio menos restritivo para se\npromover / alcançar aquele fim de interesse\npúblico imperativo / urgente\n\n#further\n___________________\n\n\n\nhttps://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-\nadministrative-procedure-act\n\nSummary of the Administrative Procedure Act\n\n5 USC §551 et seq. (1946)\n\n• The #Administrative Procedure Act\n(APA)\n• governs the process by which federal\nagencies\no develop and\no issue\n• #regulations (#norma).\n• It includes requirements for\n• publishing #notices (#edital) of proposed\nand final #rulemaking (#regulação)\n• in the #Federal Register (#Diário Oficial),\nand\n• provides opportunities for the public to\ncomment on notices of proposed\nrulemaking (audiências públicas).\n• The APA requires most rules to have a\n\n• 30-day #delayed #effective date (#vacatio\nlegis de 30 dias).\n\n• In addition to setting forth\n• #rulemaking procedures (processo de\n#regulamentação),\n• the APA addresses other agency actions\nsuch as #issuance (#emissão) of policy\nstatements, licenses, and permits.\n• It also provides standards for judicial review\nif a person has been\no #adversely affected (#prejudicar;\n#prejudicado) or\no aggrieved (#lesar; #lesado)\n• by an agency action.\n__________________\n\nThe #Affordable Care Act: A\nBrief Summary\nhe federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act\n(P.L. 111-148), signed March 23, 2010, as amended by\nthe Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act,\nsigned March 31, 2010, is also referred to as the\nAffordable Care Act (ACA), or simply as “federal health\nreform.”\n\nhttps://www.ncsl.org/research/health/the-affordable-care-\nact-brief-summary.aspx\n\n_______________________________\n\n\n#inventory\n/ˈÍNvənˌtori/\n_______________\n\n#tortious\n/ˈTÓRSHəs/\n______________\n\n\n

== Simplificação de Linguagem (Lei 15.263/2025) ==
Abaixo, a comparação prática de aplicação do termo sob a ótica do acesso à justiça:

{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; border-collapse:collapse; border:1px solid #c8ccd1;"
! style="background:#eaecf0; color:#202122; width:50%; padding:8px; text-align:left;" | Redação Formal (Juridiquês)
! style="background:#e6f4ea; color:#137333; width:50%; padding:8px; text-align:left;" | Redação Cidadã (Linguagem Simples)
|-
| style="vertical-align:top; padding:10px; background:#f8f9fa;" | ''"O correspondente para o termo 'marbury v. madison' em processos transnacionais..."''
| style="vertical-align:top; padding:10px; background:#f4fbf7; font-weight:500;" | "#marbury v. #madison = precedente de 1803 da US..."
|}

== Detalhes Classificatórios ==
* '''Áreas do Direito associadas:''' Direito Internacional, Direito Comparado, Inglês Jurídico
* '''Classe Terminológica:''' Direito Comparado
* '''Natureza Jurídica:''' Termo e Conceito Estrangeiro
* '''Nível Técnico sugerido:''' Profissional

== Aspectos Linguísticos ==
* '''Idioma originário:''' Inglês
* '''Etimologia:''' Origem da linguagem jurídica norte-americana / direito comparado.
* '''Pronúncia ou leitura recomendada:''' marbury v. madison

== Referência Bibliográfica ==
* Dicionário Marcílio Atualizado Constantemente (2024)

[[Categoria:Dicionário Brasileiro de Linguagem Jurídica]]
[[Categoria:Direito Comparado]]
[[Categoria:Direito Direito Internacional]]
[[Categoria:Direito Direito Comparado]]
[[Categoria:Direito Inglês Jurídico]]

Marbury v. madison - Histórico de revisão

Advogado Completo: Sincronização Automática executada pelo autor - Dicionário Brasileiro Linguagem Jurídica