Home News Brazil’s Supreme Court Clears Gambling Ban Case for Plenary Review

Brazil’s Supreme Court Clears Gambling Ban Case for Plenary Review

From exclusive events and interviews to real-time market trends, Ace Alliance brings you unbiased, well-informed, and data-driven content. Our editorial team adheres to strict editorial standards, ensuring that the information you receive is not only relevant but also trustworthy.

Built by market experts hosting events since 2023, with our first event in Riga, Latvia gathering over 300 top level iGaming industry executives, Ace Alliance is able to provide you with reliable information from direct interaction with experts and leaders in the sector.

Altay Celikkaya

Content Manager

Updated: 13/11/26

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court (STF) has cleared a long-running gambling prohibition case for further plenary consideration after a 90-day judicial review period expired on 12 November 2026. The development concerns Extraordinary Appeal RE 966177, which examines whether Brazil’s 1941 criminal prohibition on games of chance remains valid under the 1988 Constitution.

Although the case can now return to the court’s agenda, no hearing date has been announced, and the judges have not delivered a final ruling.

STF headquarters, Justice statue and Brazilian flag featured in the gambling ban case update.

Regulation & Compliance

Key Takeaways From Brazil’s Gambling Ban Case

The STF automatically released RE 966177 for plenary consideration on 12 November.
Justice Flávio Dino’s 90-day review period expired following the August hearing.
Justice Luiz Fux previously supported the continued constitutional validity of the 1941 gambling prohibition.
At least 2,728 suspended cases could be affected by the eventual ruling.
The court has not scheduled another hearing or determined the constitutional status of the wider betting restrictions.

STF Review Period Ends After 90 Days

According to the STF’s official case record, RE 966177 falls under Theme 924, concerning Article 50 of Decree-Law 3.688/1941. On 6 August, Dino requested additional time to examine the case following Fux’s initial vote.

Under Constitutional Court Procedural Amendment 58/2022, cases become automatically eligible for further consideration when the 90-day review period expires. The August hearing minutes were published on 13 August, allowing the case to return to the plenary process on 12 November. The appeal originated from a Rio Grande do Sul prosecution involving slot machines operated inside a bar.

Gambling Prohibition Could Affect Wider Betting Disputes

During the August proceedings, Fux argued that the 1941 gambling prohibition remained constitutionally valid.

Referring to the state’s authority to restrict harmful activities, Fux said:

Criminal law, by its very nature, operates by restricting freedom and autonomy of will.

Dino broadly supported the prohibition’s validity but suggested that the court’s legal interpretation should also address modern online betting. The STF previously agreed to consider the appeal alongside constitutional challenges involving Brazil’s 2023 betting legislation.

These proceedings differ from the more recent Supreme Court hearing on Brazil’s nationwide betting ban, which examined Provisional Measure 1.394/2026.

What Happens Next for Brazilian Operators?

STF President Edson Fachin must determine when the case returns to the plenary calendar. The development follows the court’s suspension of lower-court challenges to Brazil’s betting ban.

Meanwhile, lawmakers continue reviewing the provisional measure, which has already attracted numerous proposed amendments concerning betting licences. For operators, suppliers and affiliates, the eventual judgment could clarify the constitutional framework governing gambling restrictions.

However, confirming the validity of the 1941 prohibition would not automatically invalidate every law permitting regulated betting.

Until further judicial decisions emerge, the legal uncertainty surrounding Brazil’s gambling market remains unresolved.