Brazil’s Betting Ban: Between the Provisional Measure and STF Review

In Brazil, Lula issued a provisional measure to ban gambling. The Constitution allows him to do so with immediate force of law when there is relevance and urgency. But here, the “urgency” appears more “political” than “legal”: the state itself authorized operators for years and now intends to shut down the market within days.

Congress can turn the measure into law, amend it, or reject it. First, a joint committee of deputies and senators reviews it; afterward, the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate vote separately. The problem is that the sites must close before that debate is concluded.

That is when the true protagonist of Brazil’s constitutional disputes enters the scene: the Federal Supreme Court (STF).

The National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) and the Brazilian Institute for Responsible Gaming (IBJR) made a bold move. As amici curiae, they asked Justice Luiz Fux to suspend the provisional measure in ADIs 7721, 7723, and 7749.

The irony is anecdotal: those three cases challenge the regulatory framework that allows betting.

The move faces a procedural problem. As a general rule, an amicus curiae cannot request its own injunction against a rule that was not even part of the original subject matter of the proceedings. The associations argue that Fux can intervene to preserve the practical usefulness of the future ruling. ANJL has also filed a direct action challenging the provisional measure: ADI 8027.

Fux was appointed to the Supreme Court by Dilma Rousseff. He is the rapporteur for the three earlier ADIs, although that does not mean that every new action automatically falls under his jurisdiction. If he takes up the request, he could issue an urgent individual decision, later subject to review by the full Court: suspending the ban, limiting its effects, or leaving it in force.

Do his precedents offer hope that he might protect legal certainty and prevent chaos with unpredictable consequences? Fux has imposed restrictions on betting to protect vulnerable people. He has also halted compulsory account closures when he saw a risk of irreversible harm. His decisions show attention to both interests; they do not predict his response to this ban.

Lula has made the first move. Congress can respond. But when it comes to the constitutionality of this measure, the final word belongs to the STF. And before that final word, whatever Justice Fux says could change the entire game. Previously published in: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7510780079988338689/