As courts in separation-of-powers systems are said to have the power of neither the purse nor the sword, their institutional legitimacy is essential for ensuring compliance with their decisions. While institutional legitimacy has been examined in-depth for national high courts, the legitimacy of sub-national courts has been overlooked. In this dissertation I develop a new measure of court-level institutional legitimacy for state high courts. I use multilevel regression and poststratification to create state-level measures from individual-level survey results. In this dissertation, I develop a theory of review and delegation by state high courts. I argue that these courts work toward two main goals: implementing their policy preferences and maintaining the legitimacy of their institution. I argue for a two-stage process that considers whether or not the court will decide on the constitutionality of a statute in the first stage and whether they will overturn the statute and delegate policy control back to the other branches of government in the second. Relying on the literatures on both institutional legitimacy and political delegation, I suggest that courts may delegate policy control back to the other branches of government by specifically stating this in their opinion. Finally, I examine the conditions under which a state high court will delegate to either the state legislature or the executive branch. Overall, I find that legitimacy is important when considering state high court decision-making; and it must be considered along with political context and institutional rules as one of the central motivations for state high courts in separation of powers theories.

[pt] A tese apresentada propõe a investigação do problema da baixa presença de mulheres nos tribunais superiores brasileiros. A hipótese levantada é a de que a pequena diversidade de gênero nos altos postos do Judiciário brasileiro ocorre em detrimento do objetivo de imparcialidade sustentado por essa função estatal em sociedades democráticas. A metodologia adotada no desenvolvimento do trabalho pode ser dividida em três partes. Em um primeiro momento, é empreendida uma investigação dogmática das normas constitucionais, leis e regulamentos internos dos órgãos responsáveis pelo processo de seleção de magistrados no Brasil. Na segunda etapa, passou-se ao exame, inspirado na análise do discurso, de textos do processo de escolha dos magistrados para o Supremo Tribunal Federal. Ambos os métodos conduziram à verificação do problema da baixa presença de mulheres e dos constrangimentos de gênero existentes para se chegar até os tribunais superiores brasileiros. Permitiram, também, a compreensão da importância atual do gênero como critério de diferenciação social e, consequentemente, da validade desse parâmetro para a investigação proposta. Na terceira parte, empreendeu-se revisão teórico-bibliográfica interdisciplinar sobre o tema e, de forma mais ampla, sobre a desigual inclusão de grupos sociais subalternos às esferas de poder. A análise permitiu a identificação das contribuições já trazidas à discussão e das lacunas que permanecem sem ser apuradas, tornando útil o seu desenvolvimento no trabalho. O exame também conduziu à identificação de categorias analíticas válidas para a análise a ser empreendida, por informarem a necessidade de que os sujeitos ocupem iguais posições de poder na sociedade. Segue-se daí a proposição do marco teórico da standpoint theory e a elaboração do argumento da tese. O argumento proposto é o de que a diversidade, em especial, a inclusão das mulheres no Judiciário é requisito para a imparcialidade judicial, instituto que será analisado a partir do direito processual. Em outras palavras, propõe-se que a imparcialidade judicial depende da diversidade do Poder Judiciário. O reconhecimento, ditado pela standpoint theory, da existência de perspectivas fundadas na posição social dos indivíduos e da necessidade de que elas, quando socialmente relevantes, sejam veiculadas para a construção de objetividades mais fortes vai, ao mesmo tempo, ao encontro dos postulados democráticos, porque amplia a participação e a inclusão social em sociedades plurais, e ao encontro da garantia de imparcialidade, porque favorece a construção plural do conhecimento. Apresento, ao final, o conceito de imparcialidade forte, que é a consequência da aplicação da standpoint theory a um Poder Judiciário democrático e que justifica a necessidade de políticas públicas para a composição paritária de gênero nos tribunais superiores brasileiros. / [en] The presented thesis investigates the problem of the under-representation of women in Brazilian superior courts. The hypothesis is that the absence of gender diversity damages judicial impartiality. The research methodology used has three stages. Firstly, a rigorous investigation of constitutional norms, laws and internal regulations of the judicial selection process of Brazil. Secondly, with inspiration on discourse analysis, an exam of texts on the selection process for electing Superior Court judges. Both methods verify the low presence of women and the gender constraints to reach Brazilian superior courts. The methodologies also demonstrate the current importance of gender as a social differentiation criterion and hence, the current importance of this parameter for the proposed research. The third stage is an interdisciplinary theoretical review on the subject and, more broadly, on the unequal representation of subaltern social groups in positions of power. The analysis identify the contributions already brought to discussion and the gaps that remained, validating the work development. The review also discerns analytical categories valid for the analysis, demonstrating the need for subjects to occupy equal positions in society. The proposed argument is that diversity, in particular women s inclusion in the Judiciary, is prerequisite for judicial impartiality, in the light of procedural law. In other words, the argument is that judicial impartiality depends on the diversity of the Judiciary. The recognition of standpoints based on the social position of individuals and the need for them, when socially relevant, to be conveyed to build stronger objectivities meet democratic postulates. This expands participation and social inclusion in plural societies and it is essential to assure judicial impartiality and the favoring of the plural construction of knowledge. Conclusions present the concept of strong impartiality, which is the result of the application of standpoint theory to a democratic Judiciary and justifies equal gender representation in public policies in Brazilian superior courts.

Les juridictions constitutionnelles ont sans doute de larges compétences interprétatives. Toutefois, l’ampleur de ces compétences varie dans les différents ordres juridiques selon l’aptitude que les autres organes et autorités de l’Etat peuvent adopter devant ces interprétations. Une juridiction constitutionnelle a une suprématie interprétative dans un Etat en particulier si ses interprétations doivent être obligatoirement respectées et appliquées par tous les autres organes et autorités de l’Etat. Si ses interprétations sont seulement obligatoires pour quelques autorités, cette juridiction constitutionnelle a simplement une compétence interprétative supérieure vis-à-vis de ces autorités. Afin d’identifier les plus larges compétences interprétatives des juridictions constitutionnelles, la démarche comparative est hautement recommandée parce qu’elle permet de distinguer plus facilement les limitations que ces juridictions peuvent rencontrer dans leurs ordres juridiques respectifs. Ainsi, en suivant cette démarche, seront identifiées l’ampleur des compétences interprétatives des juridictions constitutionnelles française et colombienne et leurs répercussions dans chacun de leurs Etats. / Constitutional jurisdictions should have wide interpretative powers. However, the scope of these competences varies in different legal systems depending on the ability of other authorities to adopt such interpretations. A constitutional court has interpretative supremacy in a particular State, if its interpretations are binding for all other departments of the State. If its interpretations are just binding for some authorities, this constitutional court would simply have a superior interpretative competence toward those authorities. In order to determine the broader interpretative powers of the constitutional courts, the comparative approach is highly recommended because it makes easier to distinguish the limitations that these jurisdictions may encounter in their respective legal systems. In this way, the scope of the interpretative powers of the French and Colombian constitutional courts will be identified as well as their repercussions in each of its states.