Standard determines immediate analysis of these injunctions by collegiate bodies; Supreme states that the absence of a collegiate judgment does not mean that the measure remains without a definitive solution
Even with the reduction in the total number of monocratic preliminary decisions, the Federal Supreme Court has still not managed to fully comply with an internal rule that determines that they be submitted to a collegiate judgment – in the Panels or in the Plenary – immediately after granting.
Among all the precautionary measures granted since 2020, 94 have not been analyzed by the competent bodies. Of this total, 40 have already been included in the agenda for judgment.
In 2022, the then president of the Court, Minister Rosa Weber, published the document with the aim of reducing the individual power of the Court’s members.
With the measure, the regiment began to determine that injunctions be submitted to judgment immediately. For urgent cases, such as arrest orders, the Court must then hold an extraordinary session within 24 hours.
Due to the measure’s influence, the Federal Supreme Court reduced the number of monocratic decisions by 70.6% in the following 3 years.
In 2022, the year the rule was changed, ministers granted 1,256 individual injunctions. The number fell to 351 the following year, 343 in 2024 and 256 in .
OTHER SIDE
O Poder360 contacted the STF. In response, the communications department sent a text on the topic. In the publication, the Supreme Court stated that the regulatory change did not “restricted” the powers of rapporteurs to decide urgent situations.
According to the Court, the “The main innovation was to establish its rapid submission to the collegiate body, reinforcing the participation of other ministers and the institutional legitimacy of decisions“.
Regarding the 94 preliminary decisions, the STF said that the absence of a collegial referendum does not mean that the measure remains without a definitive procedural solution. “In several cases, the need for assessment by the collegiate ceases to exist due to supervening facts, such as approval of withdrawal, termination of the process, loss of the object, prejudice or other hypotheses provided for in procedural legislation“, declared the Court.
PENDING CASES
Among the pending cases is a decision by Minister Alexandre de Moraes, from December 2024, on legal abortion in São Paulo. The case was released for discussion in March 2026, but remains without trial.
Another stopped process, from April 2026, is that of the President of the Court, Minister Edson Fachin. The decision prohibits the sale of goods by the government of the Federal District to help the (Banco de Brasília), which is facing a financial crisis.
There is also an order from December 2025, by Minister Kassio Nunes Marques, which establishes municipal laws on lotteries and sports betting. There is no provision for these cases to be examined by the Plenary.
However, in its statement, the STF did not comment on the cases in particular. “Verifying compliance with the regulatory deadlines in each case requires individual analysis, considering the date of the monocratic decision, the date of inclusion in a virtual session or table presentation and the official calendar of sessions in force at the time, including recesses, holidays and other particularities of the Court’s functioning..”
