UNITED STATES AND BRAZIL:

AN ANALYSIS OF THE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEIR FEDERALIST SYSTEM

GROUP A Aline Abe Cintia Ruiz Nicolau Giorgia Sena Martins Lariane Carvalho Pereira Lilian Gerolin Conway

Though some situations present us with a hybrid system lately, the

law in the United States is primarily based on case law (or

common law), which is built through decisions passed by the

courts throughout time and precedent cases that bind future

decisions. In parallel, there are statutes, treaties and regulations

passed by the legislative and executive branch, which are also

considered primary authority. Second sources of law are the

authorities to explain the meaning or applicability of primary

authorities.

The Judicial System in the United States consists of two separate

levels of courts, state and federal. The Supreme Court is the

highest court in the United States and holds jurisdiction over all

state and federal courts and original jurisdiction over a small range

of cases. The law that was allegedly violated, along with the

parties in a dispute, shall determine whether it is a matter to be

tried before state or federal courts. Most of the laws applied to

citizens daily are state laws.

One of the most important differences between the Brazilian and

the American system is that, here in the United States, each state

is free to arrange its own court system and legislate its own

specific laws. Although the Brazilian Constitution allows or even

requires that state law must regulate particular matters, the

extension of such power and/or responsibility is largely limited by

federal regulations. In other words, even if the states of the

federation present a considerable similarity in their legal systems,

they are free to create, implement and interpret its legislation, as

they understand it should be applied. In cases on the federal level,

the action begins at federal trial courts. Cases can be appealed

from there to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, of which there are

13 throughout the country. Rulings of this court can again be

appealed to the Supreme Court. California is part of the 9th Circuit.

The Supreme Court has the option of whether or not they wish to

hear the case; one of the aspects that shall be evaluated before

the Supreme Court hears the case is the relevance of the matter in

dispute. The ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court is final though there

are exceptions arising out of at least one previous case.

Also, there is a fundamental difference between the Brazilian and

the American legal systems: while in Brazil only specific criminal

matters are subjected to a jury, in the United States they exist for a

variety of subjects. As a result, it seems that the American system

brings more fairness to legal decisions since a group of people will

be deciding the relevant matter instead of the mind of a single

judge. Despite the fact that jurors do not hold technical knowledge

over legal issues, their decisions seem to be closer to what the

average citizen understands as justice.

In conclusion, whereas each state has the right to create and/or

adapt its own laws, when you take a closer look at the American

System it remains clear that the sense of definitiveness of a

decision ensures its citizens of legal stability and predictability

which are fundamental qualities of an effective legal system.

GROUP B

Ivana Roberta Couto Reis de Souza Marcia Sao Paulo Claudio Andre Raposo Machado Costa Isabela Cristina Pedrosa Bittencourt

Luiz Fabricio Thaumaturgo Vergueiro Cleide Siqueira Santos Ana Carolina Dantas Daniel Almeida de Oliveira

The U.S. Legal System is an important subject for Civil Law

practioners. This is especially true in regards to lawyers from

countries, such as Brazil, where the Constitution allows for judicial

review of acts of the legislative and executive branches, and which

also have their governmental structure laid out in Constitution.

Often times, the eventual outcome in both systems will be the

same, however, the paths will be different. Thus, studying the

Common Law system allows for Brazilians lawyers enhanced law

thinking skills.

One particular topic of interest, that affects overall understanding

of the system, is the Supremacy of Federal Law1, which allows for

appellate concourse to a higher national court – the U. S. Supreme

Court – at least in most of the relevant cases, arising from

constitutional issues.

Another relevant feature in the U. S. law is the prevalence of

practical issues, given the fundamental role of the judiciary branch

in creating and interpreting law2. The realization that law is what

the judges say it is the main issue for the American realism school,

rooted in the philosophical legal pragmatism evolved in the United

States3.

Interestingly, the subject of horizontal federalism underlines the

powers of the States, as granted by the 10th Amendment, in

legislative terms, to regulate all matters not reserved to U.S.

Congress, nor prohibited to them. This legislative power is met by

correspondent subject matter adjudication by State courts in most

issues, regardless of federal courts4.

1 See Casenote Legal Briefs, Constitutional Law, New York: Aspen Law, 2002 apud GODOY, Arnaldo Sampaio de Moraes. Notas Sobre o Direito Constitucional Norte-Americano available at <www.arnaldogodoy.adv.br/publica/notas_sobre_o_direito_constitucional>. 2 See MILLER, Charles A. The Supreme Court and the Uses of History. Cambrige: Harvard University Press, 1969. 3 It was upheld by those scholars that knowledge could not be dissociated from real legal practice, and that all theoretical conception is marked by some useful goal. 4 Thus, it can be said that federal courts have limited jurisdiction. Under article III, Section 2, of U.S. Constitution, their jurisdiction includes, among other things, all cases “arising under this constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties,” controversies in which the United States is a party and “Controversies between two or more States”, or “Citizens of different States”. REINHART, Susan M. Strategies for Legal Case reading

On the other hand, these rules are set in motion by the so called

Stare Decisis method, that enables parties to have prior

knowledge of general rules to the case, for reasons of

predictability, fairness, and consistency, through the following

basic principles .

1) a decision of a court is binding on all inferior courts within the

same system, 2) a decision by a three judge appellate panel is

binding on all courts from which that appellate court takes appeals

unless reversed in “en banc” proceedings, 3) No State court is

bound by a federal court‟s decision on a question of State Law, 4)

all State courts are bound by the U.S. Supreme Court‟s decisions

on federal law, 5) all Federal courts are bound by State courts

precedent on questions of State law. And yet, 6) no court is bound

by dicta5, even in decisions by higher courts in the system.

When reading cases in civil procedure, law students frequently

encounter the terms dismissal, summary judgment, directed

verdict, and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the terms are

names of four important motions available to one or both parties,

as cases make its way through the courts system.

In conclusion, our class had the opportunity to improve the

knowledge of civil procedure within the U.S. Common Law system,

including the trial by jury cases.

Such knowledge allows for enriching not only our professional

skills, but, also, ensured a realization of the main concepts of

American legal thinking.

and vocabulary development. Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2007. 5 Dicta refers to all aspects of a court’s decision not directly connected to

the case in file.

GROUP C

Clysses Adelina Homar Maria Clarice Maia Mendonça Pedro Melo Pouchain Ribeiro Marcia Luciana Dantas Natalia Camba Martins Patrick Sexias Lupinacci The United States of America (USA) has a Constitution that is two-

hundred years older than the Brazilian one, and was ratified in

1789. The American Constitution has been amended only 27

times. In Brazil, the 1988 Constitution is the country's 8th

constitutional text, and has, so far, received 67 amendments plus 5

revision amendments. While the American Constitution has seven

articles, the Brazilian constitutional text has 250 articles - its said to

be an "analytical text", covering a large amount of subjects. Under

the civil law system, adopted by Brazil, all legal provisions must be

enacted in written documents in order to be binding. It was a

surprise to learn that, although the USA adopts a common law

system, it also deals with enacted law, with the creation of

mechanisms to solve conflicts between them.

On July 4th, 1776, the colonies belonging to Great Britain

proclaimed independence, organizing a confederation of states.

The Brazilian independence took a different path: after declaring

its independence from Portugal, the Brazilian territory was divided,

creating states. The main consequence of this difference between

Brazil and the USA is that, while in Brazil the federal power

concentrates the most important functions, in the USA the states

seems to have broader powers than the national (federal)

government.

The U.S. Constitution - as for the Brazilian one - divided power

between federal and state government and created a system of

checks and balances, dividing the national power in three

branches: Executive, Legislative and Judiciary. The Legislative

Power follows a bicameral legislature: Senate and House of

Representatives. Bills must be approved by both houses in order

to became law. As in the USA the states have important powers

and a great amount of autonomy, it is said that one of the most

important powers of the USA Congress is the regulation of

interstate commerce. All the powers not enumerated on the USA

Federal Constitution are reserved to states. In the USA, the

resolution of conflicts between federal legislation and state law

shall be solved by the supremacy of federal law. But changes are

happening in the vertical federalism (relation between the national

power and the states), with an visible growth of federal power.

Among other changes, the courts are recognizing "implied powers"

of the federal legislative authority; the judicial review was

expanded to acts of state governments; the "Civil War

Amendments" (13th through 15th) brought procedural guarantees. It

is said that the horizontal federalism (relation between states) is

also changing, with the expansion of reach of the power of the

courts and the "full faith and credit" that has been granted to

judicial decision from other states and courts.

The USA adopted a presidential system, where the president is

vested with executive power, and he has to faithfully execute the

law. The president's main powers are: the power to negotiate

treaties, the veto power in relation to legislation approved by the

Congress and the selection of federal judges - whose approval is

subjected to Senate. In Brazil the main powers of the president

are the veto power, the power to celebrate treaties and, in some

cases, to initiate the legislative process.

The USA's national legislature has the power to establish Courts,

and the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish

inferior Courts. The Federal Courts have Jurisdiction in two kinds

of cases: a) diversity: controversies between two or more states

and disputes between citizens of different states; b) federal

question: controversies arising under the Constitution and laws of

the USA. The USA Supreme Court has original and appellate

jurisdiction. Over the years the federal court system has been

expanded and it consists, now, of 3 levels: a) trial (district) courts;

b) appellate (circuit) courts; c) Supreme Court. There are also

specialized courts. All states have their own Judiciary system, but

it is very common that they mimic the federal one.

As a conclusion, it can be said that, although Brazil and the USA

are Federative Republics, with a presidential system, the adoption

of the civil law juridical system by Brazil, as a contrast to the

adoption of a common law system, by the former, shows the

differences on the legal concepts and ways of dealing with legal

matters in each country - what makes the comparative study of

both system a challenge to the academics and practitioners.

GROUP D Victor Guedes Trigueiro Thiago Carvalho Barreto Leite Fausto Bruno Menezes Guilherme Augusto Barbosa Azevedo Wenderson Gagliano de Alvarenga Rafael Machado Although the U.S. legal system is based on common law, there are

several similar points with the Brazilian system, which is based on

civil Law. In one side, you have a system that is based on the

precedents that are made by the judges in real cases, but, having

many statutes that governs a bunch of situations. On the other

hand, you have the Brazilian system, which when time passes by,

becomes more and more based on the precedents that are being

decided in the superior courts. I think that we are all walking to a

mixed system, where many laws are made by the legislative

branch, but the decisions of the courts become more important,

just to give the population some kind of certain that their conduct

are legal.

The U.S. judicial system, as in Brazil, has the state courts and the

federal courts. The difference between both systems is raised in

the federation model. In the U.S. system, sometimes you cannot

say for sure if you are in front of a case that has to be heard in

state courts or federal courts. Sometimes you also don‟t know

which state has jurisdiction to hear the cases. Back in Brazil, the

rules of jurisdiction between state courts and federal courts are

very specific, and, often, you don‟t have problems to figure out

which system has jurisdiction to hear those cases.

Also, the precedent system is very different, because states have

its own laws and your own cases, and you can have different

solutions for the same case, if you are in California or if you are in

Nevada, for instance. This situation happens because the federal

model in the U.S. provides much more power to the states. In

Brazil, the most important laws that applies to people‟s life are

made by the federal legislative house. For this reason, usually we

have the same solutions for the same cases, even if you are in

different states of the federation. And in Brazil we also have a

court that has jurisdiction to solve cases that are decided in

different ways. That is a good solution to avoid conflicts of opinions

by the judges.

In the end, it‟s very interesting how the experts here in U.S.

compile the precedents. That‟s what you call restatements, which

are opinions made by professors, judges, attorneys of what they

think prevails in the cases of all country. In Brazil we also have

something like that. You call them “sumulas”, but there are some

differences. They are made only by the courts, and in same cases,

the singular judges have to follow this statements. That‟s what we

call “súmula vinculante”. Here in the U.S., the restatements are

just persuasive authorities, that does not have to be followed by

the judges.

As far as I can see, Brazilian‟s system and U.S. system are raised

in two very different systems, civil Law and common Law. But, as I

said before, both systems are getting very similar, just because

they are getting from each other your best features. From common

Law, we took the fairness of a system that allows people to know

what they can do and what they couldn‟t do, based on precedents.

On the other hand, the common Law took from the civil Law the

experience that rules the situations with laws is a good way to let

people aware about how they have to behave in front of some

situations

.

GROUP E

Ana Flávia Braga Bárbara Gimenez Fabrício Nogueira Gustavo Campos Julia Cadete Mariana Montenegro This paper aims to discuss some topics related to the United

States legal system. The focus will be some aspects of Common

law, as origins, stare decisis and political limitations.

The origins of Common law are found in England (King‟s Court)

where judges used to travel the country to decide the cases in

different locations. To avoid inconsistency and simplify later cases,

they developed the principle of stare decisis that binds future

decisions in similar cases according to precedents. The concept

that the decision stands satisfies the desire for consistency,

fairness and predictability.

In the United States, a decision of a court binds all inferior courts

within the same system – federal or state. Thus, all state and

federal courts are bound by the U.S. Supreme Court‟s decisions

on questions of federal law, but no state court is bound by a

federal court‟s decision on a question of state law. Although the

decisions of another system are not mandatory, they may be used

to sway the judge in a first impression case as persuasive

authority.

Today, it is recognized that judges have a lawmaking role, but

there are some political limitations: their decisions can be changed

by statutory “correction” i.e. the legislator has the power to pass a

law that supersedes the rule created by the courts. One of the

greatest challenges of the Common law system is the problem of

retroactivity. Because the judicial decisions are sources of law,

sometimes there is no prior access to a rule of law before its

application.

Despite the referred problems, Common law system provides

consistency, fairness and predictability through stare decisis.

These virtues inspire some Civil law countries, as Brazil, to adopt

the binding authority of the precedents as a way to simplify later

cases and guarantee legal certainty.

GROUP F

Ana Cristina Velloso Cruz Cid Arruda Aragao Michelle Marry Marques da Silva Miquerlam Chaves Cavalcante Reginaldo Sa Vladia Pompeu da Silva The Brazilian Federalist System, form of state formally defined in

1889, was based in the North-American model of federalism. The

most distinguishing differences found today between these two

systems are due to the way these models were created. While the

North-American federalist system was generated by the union of

independent states, that decided to create a central power in order

to get more protection against a common enemy – the United

Kingdom – the Brazilian federalist system, on the contrary, was

born with the intent to mitigate the power of the central

government, since this was at the end of a long lasting period of a

very centralized monarchy. The Brazilian provinces reclaimed

more power from the central government, dissatisfied with the

authoritarian way of government that had being taken place

before.

Even though the two countries' model of federalism share a great

number of similarities, the difference in their origin explains a lot of

the strong differences that can be noticed between both of them.

Though the North-American model has been suffering a lot of

change since its creation, especially with the growth of the central

government‟s power, its states still detain much more power than

their Brazilian counterpart.

Even with the statement of Brazilian federalism, the fact is that the

state institutions were too weak and could not get the enough

strength to contest the central government overpower. The

proclamation of the Brazilian republic allowed some strengthening

of the powers by the states of the federation, which has being

growing over the years. Nowadays the overpower of the federal

government is still very noticeable.

The Constitution of the United States of America is a very short

document. It only states the basic individual rights and government

rules, but leaves to the states all the remaining power. The

Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil of 1988,

otherwise, states an enormous amount of power for the federal

government. It also establishes – as the U.S. Constitution – that

the remaining powers belong to the states. However, because

there are so many powers already given to the central government

and since it is possible to give a very broad interpretation in favor

of the federal government, this makes the powers of the individual

states very limited.

The state governments in the U.S., when compared to the state

governments in Brazil, have great powers. They can establish,

almost entirely, all the rules over contracts, torts, family law,

commercial law, regulation of professions, business entities and

most ordinary crimes. In Brazil, most of the subject matters are

bound to the federal government or are concurrent of all the

federation members (Union, states and municipality).

Here‟s a great example of the difference in power distribution

between both countries: while in Brazil all the procedural rules of

election – even the ones to elect the governors – are defined by

the Constitution and by federal law. In the U.S., these rules are

mainly established by the states themselves.

Though the history will always play a part in the shape of the

federalist model of each country, it seems both of them can learn

from each other‟s system of law. In what concerns Brazil, there

must be an effort to give more power to the states, which is the

only way to better rule a continental size country as Brazil. The

study of the United States system of law and the experience of this

country is an unpaired starting point for this purpose.

GROUP G

Cesar Cardoso Patricia Freitas Vasconcellos Duarte Eugenia França de Oliveira Nemezio Schontag Paulo Cesar da Silva Rosana Gavina Barros Horostecki Malin Fagerlund The United States, as known today, originated from 13 colonies.

The first legal system was the Articles of Confederation but it failed

because there was no real central government. As there was no

national government, the states were forced in 1789 to create a

Constitution in order to assure national and states‟ interests.

The Constitution of 1789 creates three branches of government: (i)

Legislative (article I) with a bicameral legislature formed by the

House or Representatives and the Senate; (ii) Executive (article II)

which is represented by the President who is charged to faithfully

execute the laws and who has the power to negotiate treaties and

to select all of the Federal Judges and he also has the veto power

over legislation ; and the (iii) Judicial (article 3) formed by the

Supreme Court, the Federal courts and the State Courts.

A system of checks and balances was established in order not to

give too much power to any of the branches of government.

Through this system, for example, the veto power of the President

over the Legislative Branch is subject to approval of both Houses

in some instances.

The sources of law in the United States are enacted law

(constitution, statutes, treaties and court rules) and Caselaw

(caselaw interpreting enacted law) and Common Law. Common

Law is made by Judges guided by perception of public policy. The

Legislature can codify or abrogate the Common Law.

Also, the concept of what constitutes primary and secondary

authority has great importance to the American system. Primary

authority is binding and could be defined as a primary source of

law such as codes, case law, constitution and treaties. The

secondary authority is persuasive and consists of materials that

explain and analyze the law such as textbooks and restatements,

for example.

Precedent plays a major role in American law. In order to enforce

the principles of predictability, fairness and consistency, stare

decisis became a crucial point in understanding how the Common

Law system works by determining that precedents have to be

followed, binding, thus the courts to their own previous decisions.

Even though higher courts do not have to follow the precedent of

lower courts, nor do courts in the same level have to follow each

other‟s precedents outside of the same jurisdiction, all of the

decisions enacted by any of those courts constitute persuasive

authority in any court of the United States demonstrating once

more the power that the precedent has in American law.

Even though the United States are still a country that follows the

Common Law, it has been increasingly becoming driven to Civil

Law concepts. Nothing supersedes the power of the United States

Federal Constitution and statutes, codes and other kinds of

regulations have been increasingly enacted which makes judges

rely increasingly more in codified law rather than precedent.

Different from Brazil, whose system looks like more uniform

because of the control exercised by the federal executive,

legislative and judicial branches, in the United States the main

power is reserved to the state executive, legislative and judicial

branches, resulting in a diversity of statutory laws and common law

rules throughout the country

GROUP H

Amadeu Braga Batista Ana Carolina Miguel Gouveia Léa Émile Maciel Jorge de Souza Rafael Michelson Renata Cordeiro Uchôa Forêncio Amadeu Braga Batista The class Introduction to the U.S. legal system is essential for the

initiation of the legal studies of any foreign students about

American law. In addition to providing an overview about the main

existing institutions, as well as the fundamental concepts, it is

important to provide an environment for understanding the spirit

that inspires this system.

The Legal System of U.S. is established over three pillars: the U.S.

Constitution, the Federalism and the harmony among the branches

with the checks and balances. The Constitution itself is the result

of the bound of the thirteen dissident colonies, which fought for

independence on British rule. The consolidation of the Constitution

came in 1789, almost eight years after the “Declaration of

Independence”, on July 4, 1776. Over two centuries after the

Constitution was ratified, it was amended only 27 times – which

shows the strength of the principles and rules established in the

Constitution and the acceptance of the American people on its

determinations.

The Federalism in U.S. is very strong since states were not

created by the Constitution. They existed before it. The

Constitution was a result of the consent of the 13 separate British

colonies. However, the main rules of Federalism are established

on the Constitution, especially in its 10th Amendment – “The

Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor

prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States

respectively, or to the people”. The evolution on the American

Federalism implicates in some changes both horizontally or

vertically. In the vertical Federalism, it is possible to observe the

growth of Federal Power and its effects, specially the concurrent

power to make laws and adjudicate disputes and questions of

possible federal preemption.

The harmony among the branches – Legislative, Executive and

Judicial – is maintained by the checks and balances principle,

which means the power that each branch has on the other in order

to keep consistency to the system. The Constitution enumerates

the powers of each branch and the control each of them has on

the other.

The American Legal System is based also on common law

(derived from the British Common Law, which was in the beginning

based on the following: once similar disputes were solved in an

area, the rule applied to them became law to other similar cases in

the same region) which can be defined as the legal system in

which the rules and decisions are based on precedent, without,

however, disregard the relevant peculiarities of each case. The

principles of common law are not established in statute, but rather

emanate from decisions of courts of various states. Common law,

also referred to as judge-made law or case law, arise out of

specific legal situations. General legal principles derived from

these individual decisions are then applied to other similar or

analogous case.

The perpetuation of the system of common law is due to an

important concept: stare decisis. According to this fundamental

idea, the court for the sake of predictability, fairness, and

consistency, must apply the well-settled precedent or long-settled

principles established in previous case to future similar or

analogous cases. Important to note that the court is bound by its

own decisions, however, there is no binding to previous cases

decided by courts in other jurisdictions. It should be noted that, in

the state, the absolute supremacy of the decision belongs to the

state Supreme Courts, as on federal supremacy belongs to the

U.S. Supreme Court. Note that, regardless of whether the

requirement for binding with previous decisions, both the federal

and state levels, there may be overrule decisions if there are

enough compelling reasons to do so. May be cited as an example,

the possibility of the Court overrule a decision antecedent whose

defense has no more sense in the new social context or, if the

consequences of that decision have been negative.

In this class, was examined in a little more succinct other

fundamental concepts as important as those mentioned above to

understand the American legal system, such as Hierarchy of

Federal Courts, Jurisdiction, Restatements and Civil Procedure.

Thus, the entire contents learned had a primordial importance for a

better understanding of American legal thought and development

of a legal reasoning fit into this system, as well as to support the

future study and further, especially with regard to institutes and

converging concepts with Brazilian law, in view of the growing

closeness between systems based on common law and civil law.

GROUP I Ana Carolina de Souza Correa Ana Luiza Mendonca Soares Franciana Barbosa de Araujo Gustavos Fontana Pedrollo Nadja Lima Menezes Naiara Rezende Although Brazil and the United States of America (USA) do share

a federalist system, it is essential to point out a distinction on each

of their roots: whilst in Brazil federalism was born from an unitary

system of government, in the USA federalism was born as an

outcome of a previews confederation, in which the highest

identification among their members was the resistance to British

authority at the local level. In other words, whereas in Brazil states

were created by the constitution, in the USA they existed before it.

The creation of the United States of America is over all a

consequence of the intention to conciliate democracy and local

power, with the necessity to raise up a country big and strong

enough to assure its ideas of independence, freedom and

economic growth.

In the U.S. political system, republic and democracy are evidenced

by the presidential system and the emergence of the legislative

branch. Federalism, guaranteed by the supremacy of the

constitution, generates a system of three separated branches, to

control and limit the exercise of the central power. Federalism

enabled local and central power to coexist, generating the

complexity of more than one legal system in one only country.

These are the typically modern characteristics of the USA republic,

which do not have always peacefully lived together to another

characteristic: a specific and pre-modern juridical culture, the

Common Law. Common Law, according to Roscoe Pound, is

essentially a way of legal thinking, a way of solving juridical

problems through the application of precedents to new cases by

legal reasoning.

The coexistence of federalism, separation of branches, supremacy

of the constitution and respect to the legislative branch as an

instance of representation of society, with the pre-modern juridical

cultural heritage of Common Law, have demanded from the jurists

and the American society intelligence, prudence and creativity.

Such characteristics have served, if not for having always the best

decision, at least as a rich experience to the whole world.

GROUP J Carlos Lopes Cristiane Cantarelli Pouey Flavia Izidoro Paulo Ronaldo Ceo Renata Beckert Isfer United States of America uses common law to solve legal issues.

At common law, previous decisions made by courts create the

rules that must be followed by the people. Some subjects are ruled

by statutes, but even in these cases, precedents are important to

solve questions regarding some aspects that may not be clear or

fully disclosed by the statute.

Originally, common law was imposed by William, the Conqueror, in

1066. Before common law, judges used to give different decisions

to the same matters, which was not fair and created problems in

the kingdom. Common law was the solution found to give equal

solutions all over England.

When England ruled over the colonies in North America, they used

the same system to solve legal issues. Most colonies adopted

common law after the independence of the United States of

America.

State and Federal constitution provide for the establishment of the

court system and give courts judicial power. In most states and in

the federal system, courts are organized in a hierarchy of trial

courts, appellate courts and a supreme court.

Stare decisis is the policy of courts to stand by precedent and not

to disturb a settled point. In another words, courts are bound by its

previous own decisions. In the same jurisdiction, decisions made

by hierarchically superior courts are binding to the lowers courts.

State courts are never bound by decisions made by federal courts

on state law. Decisions made by courts in other jurisdictions, obiter

dicta and restatements are not biding, but may be used as

persuasive authority. Prior decisions may be overruled if courts

find compelling reasons to do it, such as negative consequences

originated from the prior decision.

There are four key motions in civil litigation process. Motion to

dismiss, also called demurrer, may be filled when defendant thinks

the plaintiff does not have enough information to show that there is

a legal basis for a suit. Motion for summary judgment may be filled

either by the plaintiff or the defendant, after the discovery. It

usually is granted in issues about the law, without contradictory

facts. Directed verdict can be filed if the plaintiff or the defendant

thinks that the other did not have enough evidence to support its

claim. After the jury gives the verdict, the losing party can file a

Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict if the evidence is not legally

sufficient or contrary to the law and no reasonable person could

decide in favor of the non-moving party.

United States uses the system of checks and balances. Art. I of

the Constitution gives all legislative powers to the Congress. It also

enumerates powers of national government, as of to issue money,

establish postal system, create courts, raise army and navy,

declare war, collect taxes, and spend money for the general

welfare and regulation of interstate commerce. All the powers not

enumerated are reserved to the states.

President is vested with executive Power and is charged to

faithfully execute the laws. It was also granted to the President the

power to negotiate treaties, power to select all federal judges (both

subject to Senate approval), veto power over legislation, which is

subject to override by 2/3 majority in both houses.

TESTIMONIALS

“Thomas Jefferson School of Law is a brilliant school with great Professors and helpful staff. It has been a wonderful

experience. I hope to come back here.”

Aline Abe

“The „Fundamentals of U.S. Law‟ course at Thomas Jefferson School of Law summarized American Law, in a technical

language, yet also in an accessible way. It was possible for each one of us, through the learning of the U.S. Legal System

and its principles, to learn the respective area of interest for an assortment of professionals.”

Amadeu Braga Batista Silva

“Thomas Jefferson School of Law, in partnership with the School of the AGU, undertook pioneering a program to

introduce the American Legal System to Federal Attorneys in Brazil, with important exchange of information on the

fundamentals of American Law and legal practice encountered everyday in the U.S., in particular, the State of California.

The mutual exchange of knowledge and experiences between students and professors was extremely enriching and

exceeded my expectations. In fact, all of us who participated in the program, were enlightened to the debate about the

effectiveness of the U.S. federal model, and especially on the objectivity and pragmatism with which issues are addressed

in U.S. Courts.”

Ana Gouveia

“Substantial! This is how I can analyze the „Fundamentals of U.S. Law‟ provided by the Thomas Jefferson School of Law

in San Diego last July. Highly trained teachers, equipped with a deep understanding of the issues raised who were always

willing to answer the questions of students. An efficient, yet substantial course, equipped the listener with enough

knowledge to understand how the common law in the United States of America works!”

Ana Carolina de Sá Dantas

"I am very grateful for the opportunity to attend the course „Fundamentals of U.S. Law‟ at TJSL. I was pleased to learn

more about the law in the United States with excellent professors. It was a very interesting way to improve my knowledge

and it will have practical application in my work. I hope I can go deeper in that knowledge. Thank you TJSL and EAGU."

Carlos Côrtes Vieira Lopes

"TJSL is a great place to start your journey into the American legal system. Outstanding facilities, amazing professors and

a very dedicated staff made my stay here in San Diego a fantastic experience."

Cintia Ruiz Nicolau

“Having studied at Thomas Jefferson School of Law was a great experience, so I recommend it to anyone who wants to

improve their knowledge about the U.S. legal systems.”

Claudio André Raposo Machado Costa

"The course was an enriching experience in my life, bringing me a broader vision of the American legal system. The

quality of professors and modern school facilities made a great difference in the development of the program."

Lariane Carvalho Pereira

"In my opinion, the experience at Thomas Jefferson School of Law was fantastic! I had a great time as I was able to

improve my knowledge about the American law and the American culture. The campus's structure is amazing and the

quality of the teachers is very high! I'm very proud to be part of this program and recommended it to all Brazilian

attorneys!"

Léa Emile M. Jorge de Souza

"This year's Legal Education Exchange Program (LEEP) was one of the best academic experiences in my whole life.

Apart from the flawless classrooms and library, the faculty itself was the greatest and brightest feature of the course. One

month to remember for a lifetime."

Luiz Fabricio Thaumaturgo Vergueiro

"This summer course was important for improving my knowledge of the U.S. law by bringing a complete overview of the

functions of legislative, executive and judiciary branches of the United States of America..

Michelle Marry Marques da Silva

“The course at Thomas Jefferson School of School Law has improved in my career. The knowledge and skills learned in

this amazing month will be widely put into use in my work. Besides, the cultural exchange has enriched many aspects of

my private life. In a nutshell, this experience was worth a lot!”

Miquerlam Cavalcante

“It is impressive how a very short term course could enable us to understand and be capable of interacting with the

American legal system. Not only was the content strategically picked, but we also could actually catch very good samples

of the way Americans think about society and law.”

Rafael Michelsohn

“In my opinion, the content delivered in the course „Fundamentals of U.S. Law‟ was extremely important to understand the

main principles and institutions in the U.S. legal system. This initial contact enriched our legal reasoning and our critical

thinking, beyond what will be essential for our future studies. Our participation was undoubtedly a rich experience!”

Renata C. Uchoa Florêncio