Their similarities consist in the fact that both the judicial precedent of the United States Supreme Court and the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine are the acts of judicial bodies that aim to block the effect of a legal rule or another legal act that contravenes the Constitution. Distinctions between them include: different grounds for judicial proceedings, different location of the norm in the text of the decision; impossibility for dissenting or concurring opinions of judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to acquire precedent nature, unlike the practice in the United States.
The most essential issues of how justices of the United States Supreme Court exercise their powers of review the constitutionality of executive and legislative acts and the human rights protection are also dealt with.
In ruling on specific cases, justices of the United States Supreme Court are free to choose various interpretative methodologies at their discretion. The choice of any interpretative methodologies is based on whether the justice is an adherent of "originalists" or "modernist", herewith the difference between them lies in the fact whether justices should be bound by the original intent of the drafters of Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
It has been established that there exists an objective need for addressing the issue of correlation between decisions of higher courts of the states which interpret state constitutional provisions and the decisions of the Constitutional Court of the USA that interpret similar provisions of the federal Constitution. Nowadays this issue is addressed by one of the following means: 1) by resorting to the “lockstep” approach, by which the state court takes into consideration the United States Supreme Court’s prior interpretation of the federal constitutional text concerning the similar issue; 2) by the “criteria” approach based on the application of a number of "interpretative" criteria in order to determine whether deviation from the federal interpretation is justified; 3) by the “primacy” approach, pursuant to which the state court interprets constitutional provisions independently and relies upon federal decisions only for guidance.
Key words: constitutional justice, judicial review, legal rule interpretative precedent, Constitutional Court of Ukraine, constitutional interpretation, judicial precedent, judge’s dissenting or concurring opinion, United States Supreme Court.