Brazilian Supreme Court suspends municipal lottery case for joint hearing

On Wednesday the 4th, the full bench of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) halted its consideration of ADPF 1212 once the report had been read and the oral arguments delivered. The court has not fixed a date for the proceedings to pick up again.

The case was brought by the party Solidariedade against municipal laws and decrees that create, authorise or regulate lotteries and sports betting at local level. Justice Nunes Marques is the rapporteur, and state governments and city halls are listed as interested parties. Court president Edson Fachin took into account the convenience of judging the case together with the other proceedings on the subject. These are the ADIs against Law 14.790/2023 and the actions against MP 1.394/2026, both under Justice Luiz Fux, and RE 966177, which concerns the constitutionality of the ban on games of chance. The proposal to combine the cases came from Justice Flávio Dino.

In December 2025, the rapporteur issued an injunction suspending all municipal acts on the operation of lotteries and ordering activities to stop. When the judgment resumes, the plenary will decide whether to endorse the injunction and may move on to the merits.

After the oral arguments of the amici curiae, Dino asked to speak and raised what he called a methodological doubt. He recalled that he requested a review of the file (vista) in RE 966177, reported by Fux, on 13 August, and that it was agreed all actions on games of chance would be judged together. Fachin said his initial intention was to judge the topics separately, which is why he scheduled ADPF 1212 for Wednesday. He said the session was devoted to oral arguments at Nunes Marques's suggestion, because the rapporteur considered that the public hearing held the day before on the betting ADIs could provide elements for the case.

Fux endorsed the proposal. He noted that there are four ADIs that questioned the law authorising betting and four others contesting the constitutionality of the prohibition. Fux said he will need time to prepare his vote.

Dino argued that, because the matter concerns a provisional measure, it would be prudent for the court to have a solid legal framework before deciding. Fachin accepted the points raised and closed the debate by announcing that the court will move towards a joint listing and judgment in due course.