The decision is valid until the STF definitively judges the actions that question the measure. Fux is the rapporteur of four direct unconstitutionality actions against the MP in the Court.
Fux responded to a request presented on Friday (6) by the Attorney General of the Republic, Paulo Gonet. The head of the Attorney General's Office (PGR) argued that divergent decisions from lower courts were creating legal uncertainty and causing the ban to be applied unevenly across the country.
In the decision, Fux stated that there is a risk of multiple decisions in different directions while the Supreme Court itself analyzes the validity of the MP. For the minister, the necessary requirements are present to paralyze the actions until a decision by the Court.
In practice, judges and lower court courts will not be able, while Fux's decision is in force, to proceed with processes that discuss whether MP 1,394/2026 is constitutional or not. The issue will be concentrated on the STF, which will still have to definitively decide on the validity of the ban.
Fux's decision was taken individually and will still be submitted to the Supreme Court plenary. In the order, the minister adopted the "ad referendum" measure from the plenary, which means that the other ministers will have to analyze whether to maintain the decision.
When justifying the national suspension, Fux stated that the MP is already the target of four direct actions of unconstitutionality in the STF and that decisions taken in other courts could produce different understandings while the Supreme Court does not have the final say.
The minister also mentioned the risk of decisions that allow betting to resume. According to Fux, this is an activity with "high social risk". The minister had already expressed his position against bets during a public hearing held by the STF on November 3.
At the time, Fux said that his "perception" was that betting should be banned. He noted, however, that this assessment did not conclude the legal analysis of the government's MP, which involves issues such as legal certainty, protection of the trust of companies authorized to operate and the existence of the relevance and urgency requirements necessary for a provisional measure.
In the document, Fux cited an injunction from the Federal Court of São Paulo that allowed Stake Brazil to continue operating temporarily and a decision that suspended the effects of the MP for the CDA Gaming group, responsible for the Casa de Apostas, Betsul and Jogo Online platforms.
On Friday (6), however, the president of the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region (TRF-3) overturned the authorization that had allowed the three CDA Gaming platforms to resume operation. When making the decision, he stated that the controversy over bets was already under analysis by the STF and that it would be inconvenient for lower courts to anticipate understandings on the topic.
The discussion began after the government of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) published, on September 25, the MP that banned the exploration, offering, intermediation and advertising of fixed-odds bets in the country. The ban also affected online gaming and virtual casinos. Sites will begin to be blocked on October 6th.
Sector entities appealed to the STF. The National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) and the Brazilian Institute of Responsible Gaming (IBJR) argue, among other points, that the interruption of activities creates legal uncertainty for companies that had received authorization from the government itself to operate. The operators claim that they paid R$30 million per license and made investments to comply with the rules of the regulated market.
The Federal Attorney General's Office (AGU), on the other hand, defends the maintenance of the ban and states that there are economic, social and health reasons for the measure.
Last week, Fux held a public hearing to gather arguments on the topic. The debate will support the analysis of eight actions in the Supreme Court: four against the MP that banned online betting and another four related to the legislation that regulated the sector. According to g1, there was still no date set for the trial.
