Brazilian Supreme Court Resumes Review of Gambling Ban Constitutionality
Brazil's Supreme Court will resume review of whether the 1988 Constitution supports a gambling ban via MP 1,394. Justice Flávio Dino authorized resumption after deferring for related municipal lottery cases (ADPF 1212 and RE 966177). A joint hearing remains under consideration with no date set.
SCCG Take — Operators face prolonged regulatory uncertainty until the STF clarifies the ban's status; a joint hearing could accelerate coherent precedent but risks further delay if preparation lags.
The Brazilian Supreme Court is resuming a trial on whether gambling remains a criminal offence under the 1988 Constitution. Justice Flávio Dino authorised the restart on Thursday after requesting a review in August. The proceedings now include scrutiny of Provisional Measure MP 1,394, which banned betting. STF President Edson Fachin must schedule the next steps.
Dino had initially preferred to await progress on related actions involving municipal bets and lotteries before advancing this case. With those matters advancing and another action reaching the agenda, the constitutionality review returns to active consideration. As reported by iGaming Business, the focus returns to whether the Constitution contemplated the prohibition.
Joint Evaluation of Related Actions Under Review
In early November the Supreme Court began judging Argument of Non-Compliance with Fundamental Precept ADPF 1212, which examines whether municipalities can create and operate lotteries including sports lotteries. Dino recalled his earlier request for joint evaluation of connected processes. Minister Luiz Fux, the reporter for the constitutionality actions and RE 966177, agreed there is value in consolidated review. No date has been fixed for resumption.
Fachin noted the initial stance favored separate judgments but expressed openness to a joint session. Fux emphasised the need for additional preparation time to address all points raised across the cases. “The Presidency’s stance is toward a separate judgment,” Fachin stated during the session discussing ADPF 1212. “However, I am open, of course, to the considerations of the panel and, given what we have seen here, including some arguments referencing yesterday’s public hearing, perhaps that is the path to eventually follow.”
Where the Procedural Risk Lies
Proceeding separately carries the risk of inconsistent outcomes on overlapping questions of municipal authority and constitutional prohibitions. A fragmented approach could extend uncertainty for stakeholders awaiting clear precedent on betting legality. The decision on joint versus separate hearings will directly shape both timing and coherence of the final rulings.
Gaming, betting and prediction markets — the desk’s read, every weekday.
Subscribe →