Email this article 
Writ of Certiorari as a Means of Ensuring Centralization of Diffuse Constitutional Review
- Authors: Ismayilov R.R.1
-
Affiliations:
- Constitutional Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan
- Issue: No 1 (2025)
- Pages: 28-35
- Section: Public law (state law) studies
- URL: https://medbiosci.ru/2072-909X/article/view/364441
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.37399/issn2072-909X.2025.1.28-35
- ID: 364441
Cite item
Open Access
Access granted
Abstract
The article examines the current state of the US Supreme Court in the context of global trends in constitutional review models. It focuses on the significant changes in the Court’s powers, particularly the gradual convergence and blurring of distinctions between the American and European models of constitutional review. Notably, there is a shift towards eliminating mandatory appellate jurisdiction, with an increased use of the writ of certiorari, which allows the Court to selectively choose which cases involving federal law it will hear. After reviewing a substantial body of sources on US court legislation and contemporary American legal doctrine, the author concludes that, since the late 20th century, the US Supreme Court has been minimizing its role as a general jurisdiction court and evolving into a specialized constitutional court with centralized jurisdiction.
Full Text
About the authors
Rovshan R. ogly Ismayilov
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan
Author for correspondence.
Email: rovshan_ismayilov@constcourt.gov.az
Candidate of Science (Law), Judge of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijan, BakuReferences
- Calamandrei, P. La illegittimità costituzionale delle leggi nel processo civile. Padova, Cedam 1950. In: P. Calamandrei. Opere Giuridiche. Vol. III: Diritto e processo costituzionale. Roma; 2019. Pp. 337–412.
- Kovler, A. I., Chirkin, V. E., Yudin, Yu. A., eds. Comparative constitutional law. Moscow: Manuskript; 1996. 728 p. (In Russ.)
- Pegoraro, L. El desarrollo de la justicia constitucional, la traición a Kelsen por parte de la doctrina académica y la venganza de Schmitt. In: T. Reuters, ed. Centenario de los tribunales constitucionales. México; 2021. Pp. 329–373.
- Warren, C. The Supreme Court in United States history. Vol. 1. Boston: Little, Brown & Co; 1922. 540 p.
- Burnham, W. Introduction to the law and legal system of the United States. Transl. from Engl. by A. V. Alexandrov, et al. Ed. V. A. Vlasikhin. Moscow: Novaya Yustitsiya; 2006. 1211 p. (In Russ.)
- Hartnett, E. Questioning certiorari: some reflections seventy-five years after the Judges’ Bill. Columbia Law Review. 2000;(100):1643-1738.
- Richman, W., Reynolds, W. Injustice on appeal: the United States Courts of Appeals in crisis. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. 237 p.
- Kolokolov, N. A. Judicial power: on the essence of the phenomenon in the logos. Moscow: Yurist; 2005. 559 p. (In Russ.)
- Provine, D. Case selection in the United States Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1980. 214 p.
- Grove, T. The exceptions clause as a structural safeguard. Columbia Law Review. 2013;(113):929-1006.
- Shapiro, S., Geller, K., Bishop, T., et al. Supreme Court practice: for practice in the Supreme Court of the United States. 10th ed. Arlington, VA: Bloomberg BNA; 2013. 1493 p.
- Boskey, B., Gressman, E. The Supreme Court bids farewell to mandatory appeals. Federal Rules Decisions. 1988;(121):81-99.
- Rehnquist, W. The Supreme Court: how it was, how it is. New York: Morrow; 1987. 338 p.
- Smith, K. Certiorari and the Supreme Court Agenda: An Empirical Analysis. Oklahoma Law Review. 2001;(54):727-774.
- McCloskey, R. The American Supreme Court. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1994. 267 p.
- Häberle, P. La jurisdicción constitucional en la fase actual de desarrollo del Estado constitucional. Teoría y Realidad Constitucional. 2004;(14):153-176.
- Dahl, R. Decision-making in a democracy: the Supreme Court as a national policy-maker. Journal of Public Law. 1957;(6):279-295.
- Cappelletti, M. The judicial process in comparative perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1989. 417 p.
- Rogowski, R., Gawron, T. Constitutional litigation as dispute processing: comparing the U.S. Supreme Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court. In: R. Rogowski, T. Gawron, eds. Constitutional courts in comparison: the U.S. Supreme Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court. New York: Berghahn Books; 2016. Pp. 1–22.
- Greene, J. The Supreme Court as a Constitutional Court. Harvard Law Review. 2014;(128):124-153.
Supplementary files
