Resumo
En 2016, Donald John Trump fue elegido presidente de Estados Unidos y, en esa misma elección, el Partido Republicano logró obtener la mayoría en el Senado, lo que facilitó que Trump pudiera nombrar a tres jueces de la Corte Suprema, generando cambios significativos en su jurisprudencia en materia de aborto, acciones afirmativas y regulaciones administrativas. Estos acontecimientos han provocado debates sobre la necesidad de reformar el sistema de selección de jueces de la Corte Suprema. El objetivo de este trabajo es identificar las modificaciones jurisprudenciales más relevantes derivadas de los jueces incorporados durante el primer mandato de Trump, así como analizar las reformas propuestas para mejorar el proceso de selección de jueces de la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos.
Referências
Bannon, A. y Milov-Córdoba, M. (2023). Supreme Court term limits: A path to a more accountable High Court. Brennan Center for Justice. https://search.issuelab.org/resource/supreme-court-term-limits-a-path-to-a-more-accountable-high-court.html
Bendicksen, L., Kesselheim, A. y Daval, C. J. R. (2023). FDA and Chevron deference. Food and Drug Law Journal, 78, 371-389.
Beard, C. (1936). The living constitution. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 185, 29-34.
Calabresi, S. (2008). A critical introduction to the originalism debate. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 31(3), 875-897.
Caldeira, G. (1987). Public opinion and the U.S Supreme Court: FDR´s court- packing plan. The American Political Science Review, 81(4), 1139-1153.
Carson, J. y Kleinerman, B. (2002). A switch in time saves nine: Institutions, strategic actors and FDR´s court packing plan. Public Choice, 113(3/4), 301-324.
Cipriano, S. (2024). The First Amendment and the abortion rights debate. Princeton Legal Journal Forum, 4, 12-14.
Cohen, D. S., Greer, D. y Rebouché, R. (2023). The new abortion battleground. Columbia Law Review, 123(1),1-100.
Cramton, R. (2007). Reforming the Supreme Court. California Law Review, 95, 1313-1334.
Elshtain, J. B. (2000). Roe v. Wade: Speaking the unspeakable. En R. P. George (Ed.), Great cases in constitutional law (pp. 175–191). Princeton University Press.
Freeman, S. (1992). Original meaning, democratic interpretation and the Constitution. Philosophy &Public Affairs, 21(1), 3-42.
Friedman, B. y Smith, S. B. (1998). The sedimentary Constitution. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 147(1), 1-90.
Friedman, S. E. y Weymark, J. A. (2022). Precedent–based judgment: Aggregation in the US Supreme Court. Revue Économique, 73(6), 1069–1092.
Garda Jr., R. A. (2024). Students for Fair Admissions through the lens of interest convergence theory: Reality, perception, and fear. Loyola University of New Orleans School of Law, 77(1), 93-160.
Gocke, A. (2021). Chevron´s next chapter: A fig leaf for the nondelegation doctrine. UC Davis Law Review, 55, 955-1017.
González Tocci, M. L. (2017). Algunas reflexiones sobre la obligatoriedad vertical de los precedentes de la Corte Suprema. Anales de la Academia Nacional de Ciencias Morales y Políticas, Tomo XLIV, pp. 347-366.
Goodman, G. Nagashima, R. y Reber, S. (2023, 7 de noviembre). Admissions at most colleges will be unaffected by Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/admissions-at-most-colleges-will-be-unaffectedby-supreme-court-on-affirmative-action/
Goodwin, B. K. y Smith, V. H. (2024). The Chevron decision and US livestock policy. American Enterprise Institute, 1-5.
Grossi, P. y O´Connor, D. (2023). FDA preemption of conflicting state drug regulation and the looming battle over abortion medication. Journal of Law and Biosciences, 10(1), 1-45.
Guarnieri, I. y Nash, E. (2022, 13 de junio). States have trigger bans- here´s what happens when Roe is overturned. Guttmacher Institute. https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2022/06/13-states-have-abortion-trigger-bans-heres-what-happens-when-roe-overturned
Hamilton, A., Jay, J. y Madison, J. (1999). The Federalist Papers (C. Rossiter, Ed.). Mentor.
Hemel, D. (2021). Can structural changes fix the Supreme Court? The Journal of Economic Perspective, 35(1), 119-142.
Hochschild, J. (1998). The strange career of affirmative action. Ohio State Law Journal, 59(3), 997-1038.
Iñiguez Manso, A. R. Las acciones afirmativas en el sistema de admisión universitario en la causa Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President of Harvard College. Derecho Público Iberoamericano, 26, 81-101.
Kalman, L. (2005). The Constitution, the Supreme Court, and the New Deal. The American Historical Review, 110(4), 1052-1080.
Kammen, M. (1987). “A vehicle of life”: The Founders’ intention and American perceptions of their living Constitution. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 131(3), 325-340.
Kaufman, W. (2014). The truth about originalism. The Pluralist, 9(1), 39-54.
Keglovits, K. (2022). A way forward after Dobbs: Human rights advocacy and self-managed abortion in the United States. Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar, 18, 73-102.
Kreft, C. (2025, 23 de diciembre). Non potest delegari: How the common law principle of agency recasts the nondelegation doctrine. Federalist Society Review, 26. https://fedsoc.org/fedsoc-review/non-potest-delegari-how-the-common-law-principle-ofagency-recasts-the-nondelegation-doctrine
Krishnakumar, A. (2022). Statutory history. Virginia Law Review, 108, 263-351.
McDowell, G. (2010). The language of law and the foundations of American constitutionalism. Cambridge University Press.
McMillion, B. (2022). Supreme Court appointment process: President’s selection of a nominee (CRS Report No. R44235). Congressional Research Service. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44235
Maltz, E. M. (1994). Rethinking constitutional law, originalism, interventionism and the politics of judicial review. University Press of Kansas.
Mitchell, W. D. (1931). Appointment of federal district judges. American Bar Association Journal, 17(9), 569-574.
Ogale, A. (2022). Vagueness and nondelegation, Virginia Law Review, 108(3), 783-828.
Pérez Alonso, J. (2023). Crónica de la batalla judicial en torno al aborto: de Roe v.Wade a Dobbs v. Jackson. Teoría y Realidad Constitucional, 51, 529-564. https://doi.org/10.5944/trc.51.2023.37519
Robbins, K. (2024). Chevron overturned: How the Loper decision is likely to affect the power of regulatory agencies in the near future. Juris Mentum Law Review, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.57912/27734034
Ryan, J. E. (2011). Laying claim to the Constitution: The promise of new textualism, Virginia Law Review, 97(7), 1523-1572.
Scalia, A. (2008). Foreword. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 31(3), 871-874.
Shapiro, W. (2020). Court packing is not the solution. En Democracy & justice: Collected writings (pp. 91-92). Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/ourwork/analysis-opinion/case-against-court-packing
Stone, G. (2011). Understanding Supreme Court confirmations. The Supreme Court Review, 2010(1), 381-467. https://doi.org/10.1086/658391
Sunstein, C. R. (1999). Nondelegation canons (John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper No. 82). Harvard Law School.
Sunstein, C. R. (2019). Chevron as law. Georgetown Law Journal, 107, 1613-1683.
Schwarz, F. A., Jr. (2020). How to save the Supreme Court. En Democracy & Justice: Collected Writings (pp. 82-89). Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2020-04/2020Annual_Democracy%26Justice_Collected%20Writings.pdf
Walker, J. (2020). The Kavanaugh Court and the Schechter -to- Chevron spectrum: How the new Supreme Court will make the administrative state more democratically accountable. Indiana Law Journal, 95(3), 924-975.
West, R. (2009). From choice to reproductive justice: De-constitutionalizing abortion rights. The Yale Law Journal, 118(7), 1394-1432.
Wong, A. (2023, 6 de julio). After Supreme Court ruling, race-based scholarship scrutiny. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2023/07/06/after-supremecourt-affirmative-action-ruling-scholarships-targeted/70388058007/
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Revista Jurídica Digital UANDES