Spending on the Justice system in Brazil grew 15.8% between 2023 and 2024 and reached the mark of R$181.5 billion. The value is equivalent to 1.55% of the (Gross Domestic Product) and 3.38% of the total expenditure of the Union and state and municipal governments in the same period.
The data comes from the general government expenditure report released in December 2025. The survey is carried out by the National Treasury based on the (Classification of Government Functions), a criterion for organizing public spending developed by the (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development).
In this methodology, government accounts are grouped into categories based on functions performed by the State. Expenses with state, regional, superior courts, Electoral, Military and Labor Courts, (National Council of Justice) and (Federal Supreme Court) are accounted for in the “public order and security” function.
As the classification does not follow institutional criteria, the subfunction “courts of justice” includes, in addition to the courts mentioned, bodies that are not part of the Judiciary, such as the Public Ministry, the Public Defender’s Office of the Union and the (Advocacy General of the Union).
In comparison to other countries, data from 2021 shows that Brazil spent the most on the Justice system that year, totaling 1.6% of GDP (Gross Domestic Product). In the following two years, it occupied the second position, behind in 2022 and 2023. The share of GDP spent in these two years was 1.33% and 1.43%, respectively.
The data compiled by the Treasury are from 2024, but the international comparison is made based on the previous year. The reason is the date on which the data was made available by the other 56 countries included. The survey does not include information about the United States, China and Russia. There is also no data, with the exception of Colombia, on countries that border Brazil.
According to the report, expenses of the Justice system on personnel represented the main destination of payments made by institutions in 2024, with 77.9% of expenses allocated to payrolls and 1.7% to social security and assistance benefits. In total, these categories totaled R$144.3 billion in the period.
Asked how the frills —compensation funds paid above the constitutional ceiling— affect these values, the Treasury reported compiling data from official bases on budget execution that do not allow “to distinguish, with precision, the specific portion corresponding to ‘compensation funds'”.
Another segmentation, by federated entities, shows that the states spend 2.5 times more than the Union. In total, R$126.5 billion was spent with the Justice system in the federative units compared to R$50.6 billion at the federal level.
State budget and additional credits
The issue of Judiciary spending on personnel has provoked debates this year due to Supreme Court decisions on the matter. Ministers Flávio Dino and Gilmar Mendes issued decisions in February barring the payment of so-called penduricalhos. On the 25th, the court ruled on the matter and agreed to limit this type of payment, but also allowed some of them to continue exceeding the civil service ceiling, which is more than R$46,000.
A survey organized by Plataforma Justa also monitored state spending on courts, defenders’ offices and the Public Prosecutor’s Office. 94% of state budgets were analyzed, totaling R$93.2 billion in total. The largest portion of this amount (67%) was consumed by payrolls.
The executive director of Justa, says it is reasonable that the payroll is the main expense of a court, but states that the disproportionality of the portions reserved for the Judiciary and related bodies in the budgets researched is worrying.
She cites as an example the state of , where the Court of Justice cost more than 13 other areas combined, including social assistance and energy. Zaffalon also highlights the discrepancy between the growth in justice spending in relation to the general budget of states and specific areas.
“The Justice system, in our democratic design, has the role of resolving conflicts, but it becomes a generator of conflicts. This is because the proceeds from the collection are unique and need to be divided into essential services”, he states.
José Maurício Conti, former magistrate and judge, states that the search for benefits is natural and treats the phenomenon as “rent seeking” —economic concept that attempts to explain the phenomenon of actors seeking to maximize wealth.
He states that the CNJ rules that regulate compensation funds already exist and must be complied with. “Efforts should be to make the Judiciary and the public sector more efficient. It would be a more productive fight”, he states.
The study also monitored how so-called additional credits are used to fund justice institutions and their payrolls. These amounts consist of budget changes above the annual forecast that, as a rule, do not pass through the Legislature.
The research reveals that R$4.7 billion was used to cover payrolls outside the budget approved in the Legislative Assemblies. In states like Pará and Santa Catarina, for example, around a third of the leaves were covered by these amounts.
Conti states that under-sizing of Judiciary budgets is common, which makes the search for revenue necessary and could compromise the separation of Powers. “This means that there will be a political negotiation at some point at the end of the financial year, which can place the Judiciary in a relationship of dependence, mainly, with the Executive”, he says.
According to article 99 of the Constitution, the Brazilian Judiciary enjoys financial autonomy. In practice, this means that this Branch sends its own (Annual Budget Law) through the Legislature. This autonomy, however, is linked to portions of the Union and state revenues.
According to Hendrick Pinheiro, law professor at UFRJ (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro), linkage is one of the factors that explains the high numbers in the Brazilian Judiciary. “These resources could not be spent in any other way than on the Judiciary. So, a kind of floor is created, and this stimulates spending”, he says.
The professor considers that financial autonomy is important in maintaining the independence of Justice in relation to other Powers and, therefore, should not be abandoned. “It’s the same problem as democracy: we don’t have a better solution. Maybe think of a value proportional to the number of judges or cases”, he says.
