STF Suspends Lower-Court Challenges to Brazil’s Betting Ban

By Tom Whitfield

Brazil’s Supreme Court Justice Luiz Fux signed an order Sunday suspending proceedings in every ongoing lower-court challenge to Brazil’s fixed-odds betting ban, automatically voiding injunctions that had allowed three betting houses to reopen.

What does Fux’s order cover?

Fux paused proceedings in all ordinary courts until the Supreme Federal Court (STF) decides the constitutional challenge to Provisional Measure 1.394/2026 in ADIs 8.024. The order follows an opinion from the Attorney General’s office, or PGR, which asked the STF to prevent conflicting rulings while the measure awaits a plenary vote.

Fux did not resolve the ban’s constitutionality Sunday; he concentrated the dispute at the top court. The practical effect extends beyond a procedural pause. Lower courts issued injunctions on the issue, and Fux’s order makes them all fall away.

A preliminary ruling from the Regional Federal Court of the 3rd Region had authorized three betting houses to resume operating despite the federal prohibition. The PGR cited that ruling as one example of divergent decisions in lower courts.

Fux formalized the pause: “I grant the request made by the Attorney General to determine the suspension of all judicial proceedings underway in the ordinary courts that discuss the constitutionality of MP 1.394/2026 until the final judgment of the constitutional dispute by the Supreme Federal Court in ADIs 8.024,” he wrote.

Takeaway: Lower-court injunctions no longer control betting operations while the STF reviews the ban.

Why did the PGR seek a single ruling?

Fux wrote in the decision: “There is a risk of legal insecurity because of the possibility of multiple decisions in opposing directions, with the aggravating factor that this concerns the possible release of an activity recognized as harmful and of high social risk, namely the exploitation of fixed-quota bets.”

The Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office said the provisional measure had prompted a “proliferation” of lawsuits over its validity “despite the issue already being before the STF.” According to the MPF, that pattern creates “legal insecurity and asymmetric application of the rule in relation to its subjects.”

Takeaway: The PGR wants one STF decision to replace conflicting lower-court rulings.

What does the federal ban cover?

The Lula government published the provisional measure in September. It prohibits nationwide the operation, offer, intermediation and advertising of physical or virtual fixed-odds betting. The measure names advertising as a prohibited activity alongside the betting market itself.

The prohibition was an electoral banner for President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT), whom voters reelected to another four-year term.

Takeaway: The September measure covers both fixed-odds betting and its advertising nationwide.

What position did Fux take?

Fux’s decision came after a hearing last week on the sports-betting prohibition. At the hearing, he said bets “must be banned” and cited economic and financial imbalances and legal insecurity caused by the measure.

Fux is the rapporteur for four Supreme Court actions challenging the provisional measure’s constitutionality. He explained his position at the hearing: “I did not have the opportunity to reiterate and add to my vote the perception that bets must be banned. It happens that I have ten colleagues who will have to consider it, which is why I will have to bring them other elements that arose after the MP,” he said.

Takeaway: Fux favors the ban, but the other 10 justices must decide the constitutional challenge.

Why did clubs and gaming representatives intervene?

Representatives of football clubs and a national gaming association attended the STF hearing. They argued that the prohibition drove an expansion of clandestine platforms operating without federal authorization.

What happens next: Until the STF rules on ADIs 8.024, lower courts cannot reopen fixed-odds betting operations through injunctions, and Fux said he will brief the other 10 justices on developments since the measure.