"Moraes Damages": The Lawfare Strategies of Justice Alexandre de Moraes in the Supreme Federal Court

The following article uses historical research to examine decisions made by Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court (SFC) specifically mentioning the work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, or Marxism, in the period of the country’s civilian-military-corporate dictatorship (1964-1985). Analyzing the thoughts and actions of the dictatorship’s legal advocates in the SFC facilitates an understanding of the ideological foundations provided by part of the legal literature still used nowadays in legal teaching and practice. Historically updated by the current conservative movement, the rejection of progressive theories in the sphere of law is an echo from the dictatorship period, in which they were widely censured and criminalized. Methodologically, the research is qualitative in nature, with a historical-theoretical profile, harnessing an interdisciplinary approach undertaken by means of inductive-deductive reasoning based on an approach to micro-history. The main source researched consists of the database containing the rulings from the jurisprudential archive available from the SFC’s website.

In April 2010, the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (SFC) controversially decided to uphold the country’s Amnesty Law, which currently prevents prosecutions for violations of human rights committed during the military dictatorship. However, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights immediately followed with an opposing view in the Araguaia case, by declaring that the Amnesty Law must lack effect under the American Convention. The Brazilian society now faces an unprecedented challenge: how can it expect that its domestic courts would implement such international obligations? Drawing upon the prospects that a renewed SFC may revisit the case in response to the mounting pressures of Araguaia, this article examines the complex legal issues that remain around the enforceability of international justice under Brazil’s constitutional framework. The analysis suggests that different judicial strategies could still be explored in order to shift the SFC’s stance towards a more consistent application of international human rights principles.

The Law 13.964, of December 24, 2019, known as the Anti-Crime Package, introduced into the current Brazilian Code of Criminal Procedure the institution called the judge of guarantees, aiming to provide greater impartiality in judgment throughout all phases of criminal prosecution, as there will be one judge for the inquisitorial phase (police/investigation) and another judge for the procedural phase, thus improving the accusatory system in the legal framework. This institution gained special prominence after the judgment by the Supreme Federal Court (STF) of the four Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality (ADIs 6298, 6299, 6300, and 6305). From these rulings, it was defined what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional in Law No. 13.964/2019, as well as being considered a mandatory rule establishing a deadline for the implementation and operation of the judge of guarantees throughout the country. The issue to be analyzed will be whether the Brazilian legal system is prepared for the implementation of the judge of guarantees? The general objective will be to understand the structural, budgetary, and staffing difficulties, as well as the legislative competence dialectic regarding the implementation of the judge of guarantees in the Brazilian judicial system, for its effective implementation within the deadline established by the Supreme Federal Court. The specific objectives are to assess the obstacles and difficulties in the physical structures of courts and judicial divisions, point out budgetary difficulties, and the challenges related to the number of court and division staff. The methodology will follow the deductive method, using bibliographic research, with an exploratory objective, qualitative approach, basic nature, and systematic literature review, encompassing academic articles, books, and legal documents.

ان موضوع التنازع القضائي في الأنظمة الفيدرالية هو حالة طبيعية، وهو ناتج عن عملية توزيع الاختصاصات فيما بين مستويات الحکم في الدولة الفيدرالية، ولما کانت النزاعات هي واقع لا يمکن تجاهله، لذا فيکون من الضروري أن يکون لهذا التنازع جهة تحله وتقضي فيه. وبما أن العراق أصبح دولة فيدرالية، وقد جمع أکثر من طريقة في عملية توزيع الاختصاصات، لذا فإنه من الطبيعي أن تکون هناک نزاعات حول ممارسة هذه الاختصاصات. ولقد نظم الدستور العراقي الاختصاص في نظر المنازعات القضائية التي تنشأ عن ممارسة الاختصاصات المرکزية والمحلية، وعقد الاختصاص للمحکمة الاتحادية العليا. وهذا البحث قد تناول التعريف بالمنازعة القضائية وکيفية رفع الدعوى امام المحکمة الاتحادية العليا، وکذلک تم توضيح اجرءات سير المرافعة في دعوى التنازع وصدور حکم فيها، ثم اختتم هذا البحث بأهم النتائج والتوصيات التي توصل اليها الباحث. A judicial dispute in the federal regimes is normal case, so when these disputes are real situation, so should be there authority to solve it. And so, Iraq became federal state, and collected more than one method to specializations distribution, so that it is normal to appear dispute cases about practicing these specializations. The Iraqi constitution organized the special of processing to solve disputes which will be produce about federal and local specializations practicing, so the Iraqi constitution appointed “The Supreme Federal Court” for these cases. This research explained definition of the judicial dispute, and how introducing the lawsuit before the supreme federal court. Also, this research processed procedures of the pleading until court’s decision issuance. Finally, research had ended with an important results and recommendations.

O presente artigo destaca a relação entre humanos e animais não humanos, visando a discutir, indiretamente, o secular processo de coisificação animal e, diretamente, o sacrifício de animais em cerimônias religiosas de matriz africana face à regra proibitiva de crueldade contra os animais do art. 225, §1º, VII da CF/88. Nesse sentido, analisa-se o recente julgamento no Supremo Tribunal Federal – STF que culminou no reconhecimento da constitucionalidade do referido sacrifício, caracterizando-se a temática como uma das questões mais complexas e relevantes para tutela dos direitos dos animais no Brasil. Pretende-se, a partir da regra constitucional citada, abordar criticamente o julgamento do Recurso Extraordinário n. 494601 e demonstrar que o seu resultado reflete o pouco amadurecimento do STF para discutir o conflito entre o direito à liberdade religiosa e o direito à vida animal, ambos fundamentais. A metodologia utilizada envolveu a técnica de pesquisa revisão bibliográfica, consulta à legislação e doutrina especializada nacionais, e análise de precedentes judiciais provenientes do STF com temática semelhante à presente.

The right to health is one of the most sought-after rights in the courts, particularly the granting of medications not included in the SUS (Brazilian Unified Health System). As a result, there is legal instability, as judges do not always have the parameters to resolve such issues. On the other hand, social, technological, and informational advances make people increasingly aware. With more information, they make demands on the State, requiring positive action from political and legal representatives. In this context, the Supreme Federal Court (STF) established parameters for the granting of medications and therapies not included in the SUS (Brazilian Unified Health System). It was decided that granting of medications and therapies will be subject to high-level scientific evidence: randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, or meta-analysis. Thus, it is understood that the STF established a standard of proof by establishing the types of evidence that are appropriate for granting the right. The objective of this paper is to analyze the scientific studies required by the Supreme Federal Court (STF) in the context of rare diseases and to question whether the requirement for high-level scientific evidence by the applicant is reasonable. The method used was a qualitative approach, through a literature review of national and international legal, medical literature, and an analysis of the binding precedent of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) and its impact on decisions regarding treatment in rare diseases. This approach is necessary because judges are rarely aware of the production of this scientific evidence and the reasonableness of requiring it in all cases. Finally, the aim is to shed light on the danger of a standard of proof becoming a tariff-based proof.

Introduction: This article deals with the Supreme Federal Court’s empowerment trajectory, exploring exogenous variables in order to explain what made the Supreme Court so institutionally powerful, and how it happened. After the classic studies on the global expansion of the judicial power, that pointed to a myriad of causes as a result of the phenomenon, several recent researches have indicated the political-party fragmentation as the main cause of judicial empowerment. Seeking to corroborate these analyses, the present work analyzes the institutional empowerment of the Brazilian Judiciary from 1945 to 2015, testing the hypothesis the greater the party fragmentation, more institutional power the STF holds. Materials and Methods: As a dependent variable, a synthetic indicator was created to measure the institutional power of the Federal Supreme Court year by year. The independent variables measure the party composition of the Chamber of Deputies annually for the same period. In addition to these variables, other measures were imported from the V-Dem database. For this analysis, simple linear, generalized linear and multinomial models were used. Results: We identified significant impact of party fragmentation on institutional empowerment of the Supreme Court. In all tests, party fragmentation increased the chances of institutional empowerment of the Brazilian judiciary. Discussion: The exogenous reforms that generated this empowerment took place with the support of the Executive and the leniency of the Legislative, transforming the Brazilian Supreme Court into the Queen of the Chess.

The constitutionality control has as purpose to preserve the Constitution supremacy in comparison to the other norms that compose the normative system. Brazil adopts the jurisdictional system of control (diffuse and concentrated methods). The diffuse method, performed by any means of litigation, can be initiated by any interested party on a real case before any judge or Court, and its decision is endowed with effectiveness ex tunc, and inter partes. The concentrated method, exerted by the action way, can only be initiated by the legitimated ones expressly contemplated in the Constitution, in abstrato, before the Supreme Federal Court. The pronounced decision is endowed with effectiveness ex tunc and erga omnes. The laws 9868/99 and 9882/99, which regulate ADIN, ADECON and ADPF, modifi ed substantially the complex system of Brazilian constitutionality control, specifi cally the concentrated one, while admitting, even exceptionally, the protraction in time of the effectiveness of the decision pronounced by the Supreme Federal Court.

<em>O presente artigo tem como finalidade discutir, a partir da modulação dos efeitos da decisão no controle de constitucionalidade, a possibilidade de atuação discricionária do Poder Judiciário. Apresentados os controles de constitucionalidade difuso e concentrado, bem como a modulação dos efeitos da decisão que reconhece a (in)constitucionalidade, parte-se para análise de um caso concreto, a saber, o Recurso Extraordinário 197.917/SP, em que o Supremo Tribunal Federal modulou os efeitos de sua decisão. Mesmo se tratando de controle difuso de constitucionalidade, onde se adota a teoria da nulidade, o Supremo Tribunal Federal decidiu pela aplicação de efeitos pro futuro, oriundo do controle concentrado de constitucionalidade. Assim, utilizando-se do método fenomenológico-hermenêutico, parte-se da premissa básica de que a abstrativização do efeito difuso pode ser maléfica a toda a sociedade. Desta premissa inicial, surgem algumas conclusões, dentre as quais a de que aqueles que não fizeram parte da lide e não tiveram direito ao contraditório e a ampla defesa podem sofrer os efeitos da decisão. Conclui-se também, que a modulação</em> <em>parece indicar uma postura ativista do Poder Judiciário, que, sem critérios explícitos para definição dos efeitos das suas decisões, controlam a constitucionalidade posta em discussão.</em>

The work analyzes the federal clashes that took place within the ADI 6492, which dealt with the constitutional analysis of the new Basic Sanitation Statute. Thus, through Critical Discourse Analysis, the decisions of the ministers were examined, observing the existence of a relaxation of the constitutional sub-principles of federalism. The main objective was, therefore, to understand the changes promoted in the federative balance through the redistribution of competencies among the federated entities, based on the discussions held in the ADI, which focused on the process of sharing competencies. The results indicate that the Supreme Federal Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal - STF), regarding public sanitation policy, prioritized a pragmatic and consequentialist model, justifying the centralization of competencies in the Union as a strategy to universalize public policy and ensure fundamental rights, influenced by the urgency of the Covid-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, the decision generated federal tensions, compromising the principle of subsidiarity and the autonomy of subnational entities. It is concluded that in this ADI, federalism was used to realize public policies, altering the originally intended balance of power established by the Brazilian 1988 Constitution. This approach, while aimed at efficiency and speed, raises questions about the long-term impacts on the federative structure and intergovernmental cooperation.

Law No. 13,655/2018 has included in Decree-Law No. 4,657/1942 (LINDB) the provision of Article 28, according to which “the public agent will be personally liable for their decisions or technical opinions in the case of intent or gross error”. Recently, the Supreme Federal Court – “STF” ruled on ADI No. 6,421/DF. Among the objects of the ADI it was the request for a declaration of unconstitutionality of the aforementioned provision. In this context, the present article aims to identify possible points of support in the STF’s jurisprudence for understanding the real scope of the legislative change promoted by Law No. 13,655/2018, notably in view of an apparent approximation of the general regime of personal liability of administrators to the specific regime jurisprudentially constructed for the hypothesis of technical-legal opinions. In order to do so, the article analyzes STF’s rulings on the subject, aiming to understand the practical meaning of the jurisprudential evolution. It is found that, just as the legislator did in relation to the public administrator when approving Law No. 13,655/2018, the STF, based on the constitutional guarantee of the lawyer’s inviolability, has opted to ensure the latter, in the exercise of their advisory activity, considerable freedom to express their technical opinion, even when contrary to the understanding of the control bodies.

From the mid-20th century onwards, Brazil experienced a period of intense urbanization and industrialization, driven by government policies to replace and encourage local production. This change, marked by the expansion of workers to urban centers, resulted in socioeconomic disparities that persist to this day. The inequality in the distribution of resources, with the concentration of funding and talent in certain regions, exacerbates existing disparities and hinders the creation of a more equitable scientific ecosystem. To overcome these challenges, aggravated by Brazil's vast territorial extension, the country has implemented several strategies that consider the fundamental objectives of the Republic; one of them is revenue sharing and tax incentives. Despite this, the interpretation given by the Supreme Federal Court, especially in emblematic cases such as ADI 5.929, suggests a tendency to prioritize economic efficiency over regional assets. The role of Brazilian fiscal federalism in overcoming regional asymmetries and its real effectiveness are the subjects of investigation in this article. To this end, the hypothetical-deductive method was developed and the research technique was bibliographical survey, documentary analysis and case study. Regarding the proposed methodology, the study will be based on the analysis of decisions handed down by the Supreme Federal Court, in terms of general repercussion, in the last 10 years (period from 2014 to 2024), with a specific focus on issues related to fiscal federalism and revenue sharing mechanisms. The second methodological moment will consist of an in-depth qualitative analysis of the interpretative methods used by the STF, using the content analysis techniques proposed by Laurence Bardin, adapted to the legal context. This stage will include the identification and categorization of the different hermeneutic methods used by the Court, such as systematic, teleological, historical and literal interpretation, as well as the analysis of how these methods relate to the results of the decisions in terms of their impact on fiscal federalism.

Even though Ethiopia acceded to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (the CRC) about eight months after it entered into force, the Federal Supreme Court (FSC) Cassations Bench took a long time to cite provisions from the CRC in its decisions. The Supreme Court has recently started citing provisions from the CRC to substantiate its binding interpretation and decisions. In its cassation division, the Ethiopian Supreme Court is mandated to render binding interpretation of legal provisions as stipulated under Article 10(2) of the Federal Courts Proclamation No. 1234/2013. So far, the Federal Supreme Court has published 25 volumes on different subject matters including family, criminal, civil, labour, and tort cases. This article explores the influence of CRC provisions in interpreting children’s rights before the Supreme Court’s cassation division. Moreover, this article assesses the attention given to CRC’s provisions in the Supreme Court’s binding interpretation process and decisions. The article also notes the significance of binding interpretations of child rights in light of their contribution to the development of the scope of legal protection bestowed toward children's rights domestically.

Luiz Edson Fachin e Alexandre de Moraes foram os dois últimos juristas indicados para assumirem vagas no Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), órgão de cúpula do Poder Judiciário brasileiro. Com histórias distintas, imbricados com grupos políticos em disputa no cenário nacional, suas nomeações pela Presidência da República foram criticadas por alguns parlamentares e setores da sociedade. Tomando como fontes documentos oficiais da Presidência da República e do Senado Federal, por ocasião das indicações, além dos currículos Lattes e de matérias na imprensa, este artigo busca entender, a partir desses dois casos exemplares, como são construídas as trajetórias daqueles que alcançaram o posto de ministro do STF. Sobretudo, examinamos os investimentos específicos desses membros das elites jurídicas colocando em perspectiva suas heranças familiares, capitais acadêmicos, carreiras jurídicas e posições no espaço político. Contribuindo com a literatura preocupada com os processos de recrutamento pelo STF, nossos resultados apontaram, empiricamente, como que expertises acadêmica e jurídica, sólidos capitais políticos e amplas relações sociais, incluindo a militância política, podem servir como vias de ascensão ao Supremo.

Analisa-se a judicialização das políticas públicas de saúde na justiça federal, especialmente no que diz respeito ao fornecimento de medicamentos no âmbito do Tribunal Regional Federal da 5ª região. Trata-se de um estudo de caráter descritivo e exploratório, de natureza qualitativa e quantitativa, realizado a partir de dados parciais de pesquisa que investiga as processos judiciais envolvendo políticas públicas de saúde. Como percurso metodológico realiza-se uma análise das principais discussões que envolvem tal fenômeno, a fim de identificar as orientações do Conselho Nacional de Justiça (CNJ) e Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) voltados para se estabelecer diretrizes para as ações de saúde, além de investigar de que maneira são desenvolvidas as políticas públicas de medicamentos no Brasil, para melhor subsidiar a compreensão e análise dos dados. O conjunto das decisões obtidas totalizavam 1.045 acórdãos compreendidos entre o período de 2011 a 2014, catalogados e analisados após a exclusão daqueles considerados irrelevantes para o presente estudo. Verificou-se que há uma tendência do tribunal em conceder pedidos de medicamentos não constantes na lista do SUS, desconsiderando argumentos levantados pela defesa no tocante à observância de políticas pública já existentes. Revela-se ainda que na maior parte das decisões, não há uma análise criteriosa da adequação, necessidade e proporcionalidade da medida limitando-se a prover as ações sem considerar os possíveis impactos sociais e econômicos que a judicialização pode causar (82,3%). Verificou-se ainda uma presença pouco significativa de ações de natureza coletiva (2,4%), prevalecendo ações de natureza individual (85,3%).