Fux opens a public hearing on betting on November 3
The judicial track moved faster than the legislative one. Justice Luiz Fux scheduled a public hearing for November 3 at 10:00 a.m. in the courtroom of the Federal Supreme Court’s 2nd Panel to discuss the legal actions addressing the sports betting and lottery market. The summons comes at the request of the Federal Attorney General's Office (AGU), the plaintiffs in direct action of unconstitutionality 8,027, and entities admitted to the proceedings as amici curiae—the procedural mechanism through which third parties contribute information and arguments to the court.
The ruling explains why this is only happening now. The decision was not made during the election period to prevent the call from being interpreted as interference in the political process, officially confirming through the court order itself what until yesterday could only be inferred from the electoral calendar. What changed, according to the Justice's assessment, is the urgency: the deadlines set out in the provisional measure and the economic fallout on Brazilian football and other sectors of the economy now demand immediate attention, particularly from the standpoint of legal certainty.
The scope of the hearing extends beyond the specific regulation that prompted it. Fux was already the reporting justice for cases challenging betting regulations before the provisional measure was enacted. Consequently, the ruling orders that this decision also be joined to direct actions of unconstitutionality 7,721, 7,723, 7,749, 8,024, 8,028, and 8,035. Counting action 8,027—whose plaintiffs requested the hearing—there are seven cases under the same reporting justice, and the session will provide foundational input to the Supreme Court across all of them.
This consolidation is the crucial takeaway, as it brings together two generations of litigation concerning the very same market. The 7.7-series cases, which predate the ban, addressed the regulatory framework under which Brazil had legalized betting; the 8.0-series cases challenge the decision to shut it down. A single reporting justice and a single hearing will therefore examine the entire arc—from how the market was opened to how it was closed—rather than focusing solely on the ban.
The government's stance has been framed around jurisdictional competence rather than the merits of gambling itself. The AGU petitioned Fux to uphold the ban in its entirety, with its central argument asserting that the federal government holds the exclusive authority to determine which lottery modalities may operate in the country. This defense is built upon the division of powers within the federal state—a stark contrast to the rhetoric the Executive branch has employed politically, where the focus has been on consumer debt and social harm.
There is a precedent from the reporting justice himself that is worth bearing in mind when assessing the upcoming session. Fux had previously convened a public hearing on the effects of gambling, focusing on issues such as problem gambling, and the insights gathered there informed his vote on games of chance, in which he highlighted the negative externalities tied to the activity. The November 3 hearing approaches the matter from the opposite side of the scale—legal certainty and economic impact—meaning the Justice will have heard both sides of the balance he must strike. Among the invited participants is the Prosecutor General's Office (PGR).
The contrast with the alternate path defines the current landscape. Provisional Measure 1,394 of 2026, issued on September 25, prohibited the operation, offering, intermediation, and advertising of fixed-odds betting in Brazil, including sports betting and online games, and authorized the suspension of already-paid licenses as of October 25. Its legislative review in Congress, however, depends on a joint committee that has established its membership but has yet to convene, elect a chair, or appoint a rapporteur. Furthermore, the measure's expiration deadline could stretch into March 2027 due to the suspension of the legislative countdown during the parliamentary recess. With the hearing set for next week, the court has pulled far ahead of Parliament.
A direct action of unconstitutionality is the legal mechanism through which qualified parties ask the Federal Supreme Court to declare a regulation unconstitutional, while a public hearing is the tool by which the reporting justice gathers insights from experts, government bodies, and interested stakeholders before bringing the case to a vote. Provisional Measure 1,394/2026 shut down Brazil’s regulated market for fixed-odds betting and online casino, which had been operating since 2025 under the oversight of the Secretariat of Prizes and Bets of the Ministry of Finance, and its ultimate validity now hinges both on congressional conversion and the outcome of these judicial challenges.
Tags: Brasil, STF, Luiz Fux, public hearing