Defense says Brazil’s new betting MP is a “new fact” and asks STF to urgently resume gambling case

Lawyers in Brazil have asked the Supreme Federal Court to restart, on an urgent basis, the long-running debate over whether games of chance should be handled as a criminal matter. Their argument is that Medida Provisória 1.394/2026, which banned fixed-odds betting, changed the legal landscape while the case was still paused by a request for review.

1. In a filing submitted on Friday (2) in RE 966.177 (General Repercussion Topic 924), attorneys Laerte Luis Gschwenter and Maria Carolina Peres Soares Gschwenter asked the STF to treat MP 1.394/2026 as a supervening new fact and to resume the judgment “in a regime of absolute priority.”
2. The petition was addressed to STF President Justice Edson Fachin, reporting Justice Luiz Fux, and Justice Flávio Dino, who asked for review on 6 August after Fux voted to accept Article 50 of Decree-Law 3.688/1941. The lawyers, who represent respondent Guilherme Tarigo Heinz, also asked that the filing be circulated to all justices, arguing that the MP’s impact “cannot be limited to the office of the justice holding review.”
3. The defense relies on Article 493 of Brazil’s Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that the MP was enacted while the case was stalled and changed the regulatory framework before the Court had settled the constitutional thesis. In their view, it is no longer workable to decide on the reception of Article 50 in isolation.
4. The filing says the MP does not contradict but instead confirms a November 2015 ruling by the Criminal Appeals Panel of Rio Grande do Sul. That decision held that games of chance are not criminally typical, while still allowing the state to prohibit the activity through administrative measures and administrative sanctions.
5. According to the petition, MP 1.394/2026 followed that same model: it banned bets through police-power tools such as cancelling authorizations, blocking websites and apps, and prohibiting financial transactions, without creating a criminal offense. The lawyers say that also matters because Article 62, paragraph 1, I, “b” of the Constitution bars a provisional measure from creating criminal law. They add that the MP leaves other lottery formats authorized by law untouched, which in their view underscores the inconsistency of treating private gambling as immoral while the state runs official gambling itself.

The defense also points to Bill 5.477/2026, sent to Congress on the same date as the MP. That bill would criminalize operating, advertising, customer acquisition, and financial facilitation, with penalties of up to eight years in prison, while excluding bettors from punishment.