Cert petition

   cert petition

ID Semântico:	marcilio:cert-petition
Classe:	Direito Comparado
Nível Técnico:	Profissional
Origem do Termo:	Inglês
Áreas de Foco:	Direito Internacional, Direito Comparado, Inglês Jurídico
Jurisdição:	EUA/Brasil

Progresso do texto
		Início
		Básico
		Criação
		Desenvolvimento
		Maturação
		Revisão
		Desenvolvido
		Finalização
		Abrangente

Significado Prático

1. cert petition =\n▪ #recurso à Suprema Corte\ndos EUA.\n▪ Equiparável no Brasil:\n#interpor #Recurso\nExtraordinário ao STF\n▪ O prazo do recurso à\nSuprema Corte é de 90 dias.\n\n• In most circumstances, the Supreme Court\nhas discretion whether or not to grant\nreview of a particular case (admitir ou\ninadmitir o reexame).\n• Of the 7,000 to 8,000 cert petitions filed\neach term, the court grants #certiorari and\nhears oral argument in only about 80.\no the court grants #certiorari =\n#admitir o “recurso extraordinário”;\nadmitir o #recurso à Suprema Corte\no tag to #grant certiorari)\n\n• Granting a cert petition requires the votes of\nfour justices. → A admissão do recurso à\n\nSuprema Corte exige o voto favorável de\nquatro justices.\n• ….\n• That deadline can be extended as well by\nmaking a request to the #clerk’s office (à\n#Serventia Judicial; ao #Escrivão; ao\n#Escrevente; ao #Cartório do Juízo / da\nVara).\n• One request will be granted as a #matter of\nright (automaticamente).\n• Later requests generally require the\npetitioner’s permission.\n• There is no limit on the number of\nextensions.\n• Before the court decides whether to hear\nMr. Lyon’s petition, outside groups with an\ninterest in the outcome of the case can file\nbriefs telling the court why it should grant\ncertiorari.\n• These groups are known as #amici curiae\n(singular: #amicus curiae), which is Latin for\n“friends of the court”; the briefs they file are\ncalled #amicus briefs.\n• At the #certiorari stage, when the court is\ndeciding whether to hear a case, amicus\nbriefs are normally only filed by those who\nagree with the petitioner that the court\nshould review the case.\n• Once all of the #cert-stage briefs (petições\nprotocoladas na fase de admissibilidade do\nrecurso à Suprema Corte dos EUA/ tag #cert\nstage brief) — the cert petition, the BIO (if\nany), the reply brief (if any) and the amicus\n\nbriefs (if any) — are filed, they are\ndistributed to the justices’ #chambers\n(#gabinete. Nota: o termo #chambers é\ngeralmente usado no plural, mesmo ao se\nreferir a um único gabinete de Juiz, veja:\nhttps://www.merriam-\nwebster.com/dictionary/chamber).\no #certiorari stage; #cert stage = fase\nde #prelibação; fase do #juízo de\nprelibação; fase de análise da\n#admissibilidade do recurso (e não\ndo mérito recursal)\no Veja:\nhttp://www.stf.jus.br/portal/jurisprudencia/\nlistarTesauro.asp?txtPesquisaLivre=JU%C3%\n8DZO%20DE%20PRELIBA%C3%87%C3%83O\no https://ambitojuridico.com.br/cadernos/dire\nito-penal/juizo-de-prelibacao-no-direito/\no https://www.facebook.com/concurseirosde\nplantaooficial/posts/1265834840148621/:\n▪ Conceito de juízos de\n#prelibação e de #delibação.\n▪ O julgador, ao apreciar um\nrecurso, depara-se com duas\nfases: uma inicial chamada de\nJUIZO DE PRELIBAÇÃO, ou\nadmissibilidade. E uma\nposterior chamada de JUÍZO\nDE DELIBAÇÃO.\n▪ No dizer de Alexandre\nCâmara (CÂMARA, 2004, P.\n61), trata-se de uma\n"escalada" para o julgamento\ndo recurso, porque é no\nJUÍZO DE PRELIBAÇÃO onde\n\no julgador verifica a presença\ndos requisitos de\nadmissibilidade do recurso,\ncomo a verificação do\nprequestionamento para\nefeito de recurso especial e\nextraordinário.\n▪ Já o #juízo de delibação; juízo\nde #delibação (#merits stage\nof the appeal) é a proxima\nfase do recurso. Trata-se do\nexame do recurso pelo seu\nfundamento, isto é, saber se\no recorrente tem ou não\nrazão quanto ao objeto do\nrecurso. Isso é juízo de mérito\nou de delibação.\n• Seven of the current justices participate in\nthe #cert pool, which is a labor-saving\ndevice in which a cert petition is first\nreviewed by one law clerk in one of the\nseven chambers.\no #cert pool (pool de #analistas\njudiciais / pool de #assessores /\n#assistentes judiciais, para o exame\nda admissibilidade de recursos à\nSuprema Corte)\n• That clerk prepares a memorandum about\nthe case that includes an initial\nrecommendation as to whether the court\nshould review the case; the memorandum is\ncirculated to all seven chambers, where it is\nreviewed by the clerks and possibly the\njustices there.\n\n• Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch do\nnot participate in the cert pool.\n• Instead, their #law clerks (#analista judicial;\n#assistente / #assessor do juiz) review the\nincoming cert petitions on their own and\nmake recommendations directly to their\nrespective justices.\n• #Merits stage (fase do juízo de #delibação)\n• Once the court has accepted the case, the\nparties are required to file a new set of\nbriefs. Unlike the cert stage briefs, which\nfocused on whether the court should review\nthe case, the briefs on the merits allow each\nparty to explain why he or she should win\nthe case.\n• Once certiorari is granted, the petitioner\ngenerally has 45 days to file his opening\nbrief. (This time frame is typical, but can\nvary in particularly time-sensitive cases;\nwhen the court was considering the dispute\nbetween presidential candidates George W.\nBush and Al Gore, for example, it instructed\nthe parties to file their merits briefs over the\ncourse of a single weekend. Also, depending\non the court’s schedule, the parties to a\nmerits case may be able to agree on a\n#briefing arrangement (#negócio jurídico\nprocessual sobre os prazos de\npeticionamento) that provides them with\nmore time that the rules specify.)\n• Mr. Lyon has a maximum of 50 pages in\nwhich to make his argument (nota: Na\nSuprema Corte dos EUA, há limite de\nnúmero de páginas para razões recursais),\n\nand he uses that space to explain to the\ncourt why he thinks the Animal House Zoo\nviolated his rights when it threw out the\nresults of the promotional exam.\no To make his #argument = apresentar\nsuas #razões recursais.\n• The joint appendix is filed at the same time\nas Mr. Lyon’s merits brief (petição sobre o\nmérito).\n• A group not involved in Lyon v. Animal\nHouse Zoo, the United Coalition of Zoo\nWorkers, learns about the case and decides\nthat a Supreme Court ruling in Mr. Lyon’s\nfavor will benefit its own mission.\n• Therefore, the group files an #amicus brief\n(apresenta / protocola uma petição de\namicus curiae) urging the Supreme Court to\naccept Mr. Lyon’s arguments; furthermore,\nit brings up some points that Mr. Lyon didn’t\naddress in his brief, and that it thinks will be\nhelpful in persuading the justices to rule in\nhis favor.\n• Because it supports the position of the\npetitioner, the coalition’s amicus brief is due\none week after Mr. Lyon’s merits brief is\nfiled.\n• A would-be amicus must normally ask both\nsides for permission to file, but the court will\nalmost always allow the filing of a #timely\n(#tempestivo) amicus brief even if one side\nor another refuses to consent.\n• The U.S. government learns about Lyon v.\nAnimal House Zoo, and it worries that a\n\nSupreme Court ruling in Mr. Lyon’s favor\nwould restrict its own ability to promote its\nemployees as it sees fit.\n• Therefore, the government decides to file an\namicus brief in support of the zoo.\n• The U.S. #solicitor general (equiparável no\nBrasil: #Advogado-Geral da União), who\nacts as the government’s lawyer in Supreme\nCourt cases, files the amicus brief; her brief\nis due one week after the zoo’s brief is filed.\n• The United States is one of a limited number\nof parties that do not have to ask for\npermission to file an amicus brief.\n• The solicitor general also files a motion for\ndivided argument, asking the Supreme Court\nto allot some time for her to speak as an\namicus when the case is argued.\n• Once Mr. Lyon has filed his merits brief and\nthe zoo has responded, Mr. Lyon has an\nopportunity to file a reply brief, which is due\napproximately 30 days after the\nrespondent’s brief on the merits (but at\nleast seven days before the case is argued).\nHe uses this brief to #rebut (#rebater) the\narguments made in the respondent’s brief\nand the United States’ amicus brief and to\nreiterate the points he made in his original\nmerits brief.\n• The Supreme Court normally #hears oral\narguments (#sustentação oral) between\nOctober and April, scheduling them into\nmonthly two-week #sittings (#sessão [do\nTribunal recursal]) during which the court\nhears two (although sometimes one or\n\nthree) arguments per day on Monday,\nTuesday and Wednesday.\n• Generally, the court allots one hour of\nargument time for each case, with each\nparty speaking for 30 minutes.\n• Although amici often ask the court to grant\ndivided argument — to let them use part of\na party’s allotted half-hour to make their\nown points — these requests are rarely\ngranted when they come from private\ngroups.\n• However, in Lyon v. Animal House Zoo, the\ncourt grants (as it often does) the solicitor\ngeneral’s request for divided argument.\nBecause the solicitor general will be arguing\nfor the United States in support of the\nrespondent, she (or another lawyer from her\noffice) will be using 10 minutes of the half\nhour allotted to the zoo.\n• During the oral argument, the justices have\nthe opportunity to ask the attorneys to\nclarify or elaborate on any questions that\nhave arisen from the briefs. Frequently,\nmuch of the oral argument is devoted to\nanswering these questions. Because Mr.\nLyon is the petitioner, his attorney argues\nfirst. Mr. Lyon’s attorney speaks for 25 of\nthe 30 minutes allotted to him, choosing to\nreserve the last five minutes for rebuttal. As\nsoon as he finishes speaking, the attorney\nfor the zoo has 20 minutes to respond.\nFollowing the zoo’s attorney, an attorney\nfrom the office of the solicitor general\nargues for 10 minutes on behalf of the\n\nUnited States, and then Mr. Lyon’s attorney\nuses his five remaining minutes to deliver a\n#rebuttal (apresentar #réplica).\n• Decision\n• Later that week, the justices hold a private\nconference during which they vote on how\nto decide the case.\n• The #senior justice (#decano da Corte) in the\nmajority (that is, either the Chief Justice or,\nif he is not in the majority, the justice who\nhas been on the court the longest) decides\nwho will write the #majority opinion (#voto\nvencedor);\n• if there is a #dissent (#voto vencido) — a\nview held by a minority of justices that a\ndifferent decision should have been reached\n— then the senior dissenting justice assigns\none of the dissenting justices to write\nthe dissenting opinion.\n• If a justice agrees with the outcome of a\ncase but not the reasoning behind it, he or\nshe may #write (#redigir [o voto])\na #concurring opinion, in which other\njustices may join (to #join a concurring\nopinion = #acompanhar o voto).\no Veja também:\nhttps://www.scotusblog.com/reference/edu\ncational-resources/glossary-of-legal-terms/\no Em\nhttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19\npdf/19a1070_08l1.pdf:\no “I #join Justice Alito’s dissent in full\nand respectfully add these further\ncomments”. → Eu #acompanho o\n\nvoto vencido do Justice Alito em sua\nintegralidade e respeitosamente\nacrescento os seguintes comentários.\n▪ Tag #acompanhar o voto\n• Justices may also write separate dissents. In\nthe event of a tie vote — for example, if\nthere is a vacancy on the court or if one of\nthe justices has recused himself or herself\nfrom the case (declarar-se suspeito) — the\ndecision of the #lower court (#instância\ninferior) remains undisturbed.\n• The assigned justices then #draft (#minutar)\nand circulate opinions outlining their\nreasoning in reaching their decision.\n• The time it takes to finalize an opinion\ndepends on several factors, including how\ndivided the justices are, which justice is\nwriting the opinion, and the court’s\nschedule.\n• Typically, all cases are decided by the time\nthe court recesses for the summer at the\nend of June or the beginning of July.\n• The court announces its decision in Lyon v.\nAnimal House Zoo in open court.\n• Here, the court hands down, or issues, an\nopinion in which it #reverses (#reformar)\nthe 2nd Circuit’s decision, explaining its\nreasons for ruling that the 2nd Circuit was\nwrong to decide the case in the zoo’s favor\nand that it should have ruled in favor of Mr.\nLyon instead.\n• (Alternatively, the court could\nhave #affirmed (#confirmar; #manter) the\n\ncase, ruling that the 2nd Circuit was right\nand that the zoo should not be held liable,\n• or it could have #vacated (#anular) the 2nd\nCircuit’s ruling, effectively canceling it,\nand #remanded the case (#baixar o\nprocesso, a ação), directing the 2nd Circuit\nto re-examine it based on theories, evidence\nor reasoning it had not yet considered.)\n__________________________\n_______________________________\n\nAtualizações a\npartir de\nagosto/2020.\n\n\n\nThe jury found for the student, and the\nuniversity appealed. =\nO júri julgou procedente os pedidos do\nestudante, e a universidade recorreu.\nTags #find for; #julgar procedente #procedente\n______________________\n\n________________\n\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:

Redação Formal (Juridiquês)	Redação Cidadã (Linguagem Simples)
"O correspondente para o termo 'cert petition' em processos transnacionais..."	"#cert petition =..."

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: cert petition

Referência Bibliográfica

• Dicionário Marcílio Atualizado Constantemente (2024)