Brazil Congress Limits STJ Resources, Potentially Affecting Social Security and Consumer Cases

Brazil's Chamber of Deputies and Senate have approved a bill that significantly restricts the number of cases heard by the Superior Court of Justice (STJ). The new legislation requires that appeals demonstrate "economic, social, political, or legal relevance" to be considered. This means the STJ will prioritize cases that address issues with broader implications beyond the specific parties involved, potentially influencing similar future cases or having wider economic or societal impacts.

The project formalizes a constitutional amendment passed in 2022, introducing a "relevance filter" to manage the court's overwhelming caseload. In the first half of 2026, the STJ received 260,000 cases distributed among its 33 ministers. While the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB) supported the change, some lawyers, institutions, and companies express concern that it may hinder appeals against second-instance court decisions.

Fernando Gajardoni, judicial secretary of the STJ presidency, stated that the regulation will enable the court to better judge cases by reducing the volume and establishing binding precedents, similar to the Supreme Federal Court's (STF) system. He emphasized that "specific cases with no relevance whatsoever should not come here." The STJ website indicates the alteration will strengthen its role as a court of precedents and legal interpretation standardization, while increasing the autonomy of lower courts in resolving cases that do not extend beyond the subjective interests of the involved parties.

This new filter could affect various legal areas, including social security and consumer rights, which often involve lower individual case values. Cases concerning civil, environmental, administrative, and tax law may also be impacted. The 2022 constitutional amendment outlines five scenarios where relevance is presumed, such as when a decision contradicts "dominant jurisprudence" of the STJ. Appeals in criminal, administrative misconduct, and ineligibility cases, often involving politicians, will also be considered relevant. Additionally, cases exceeding 500 minimum wages (approximately R$ 810,000) will be presumed relevant. Resources deemed irrelevant will not have their merits discussed and require a two-thirds majority vote from the judging body to be rejected. The approved bill states that decisions on relevance will be final, and similar requests will be automatically refused.