Brazil’s Supreme Court Expands Participation in Municipal Lottery Case
Brazil.- 11 September 2026 | www.zonadeazar.com Brazil‘s Federal Supreme Court has expanded institutional participation in the case examining the constitutionality of municipal lotteries by admitting two additional amici curiae to ADPF 1212.
Justice Nunes Marques, the case rapporteur, authorised the participation of the Brazilian Association of Finance Secretariats, ABRASF, and the municipality of Itaquaquecetuba, São Paulo.
The proceedings now include at least 14 amici curiae, ranging from industry organisations to municipalities and states, making the case one of the broadest recent Supreme Court debates involving Brazil‘s lottery and betting sector.
Decision Taken on 24 August
Nunes Marques issued the decision on 24 August 2026.
The two new participants will be able to submit information, legal arguments and institutional perspectives relevant to the constitutional dispute.
They do not become formal parties to the litigation, but can contribute to the Court’s consideration of the matter.
What Amicus Curiae Means
The Latin term amicus curiae means “friend of the court”.
It describes a person, organisation or public body that is not formally one of the litigating parties but has a relevant interest or expertise in the matter.
The mechanism allows judges to consider a broader range of views before reaching a ruling.
ADPF 1212 at the Centre of the Dispute
ADPF 1212 concerns whether Brazilian municipalities have constitutional authority to create and operate their own lottery services.
The case was filed by the Solidariedade political party in March 2025.
It challenges municipal laws and decrees that established local lotteries and betting activities.
Solidariedade Seeks to Strike Down Local Rules
Solidariedade is asking the Supreme Court to declare the municipal legislation unconstitutional.
Its argument is that the proliferation of local lotteries may provide betting companies with a route around Brazil‘s federal regulatory system.
The case therefore combines federalism questions with important implications for the commercial betting market.
Division of Constitutional Powers
A central legal question concerns the allocation of responsibilities among:
- The federal government.
- States.
- The Federal District.
- Municipalities.
Federal lawmaking power covers lotteries and prize-draw systems, but the case must determine whether that legislative competence also means exclusive authority to provide the underlying service.
Municipalities Defend Autonomy
Municipal governments supporting local lotteries argue that federal legislative authority does not necessarily establish an exclusive federal monopoly over lottery operations.
Under this interpretation, municipalities could operate lottery services while complying with the general rules set by federal legislation.
The dispute therefore has direct implications for local financial autonomy.
Itaquaquecetuba Joins the Proceedings
The participation of Itaquaquecetuba introduces the direct perspective of a São Paulo municipality potentially affected by the ruling.
The city’s submissions can address how a nationwide prohibition would affect municipal autonomy and local public finances.
ABRASF Adds a Public-Finance Perspective
The Brazilian Association of Finance Secretariats brings an additional focus on local government finances.
Its participation is relevant to issues including:
- Public revenues.
- Municipal fiscal autonomy.
- Local funding.
- Financing of public policies.
Municipal lotteries have been defended by some administrations as an additional source of public income.
At Least 14 Amici Curiae
Following the latest admissions, at least 14 amici curiae are now involved in the proceedings.
They include representatives from different levels of government and organisations connected with the sector.
The number reflects the national significance of the dispute.
Broad Institutional Participation
The case has developed one of the widest levels of procedural participation seen in a recent Supreme Court betting-related dispute.
That reflects the fact that any final ruling will have consequences far beyond one individual municipality.
Major Municipalities Cited
The original challenge cites legislation adopted in cities including:
- São Paulo.
- Campinas.
- Guarulhos.
- Belo Horizonte.
- Foz do Iguaçu.
- Porto Alegre.
These cities illustrate the broader expansion of municipal lottery initiatives that prompted the constitutional action.
Municipal Lottery Expansion
Interest in local lottery operations has expanded substantially.
Since 2025, at least 55 municipalities have reportedly created lottery systems.
Across the previous three years, the total number of cases exceeds 80.
State Lottery Precedents
The municipal dispute follows earlier Supreme Court rulings concerning state lottery operations.
The Court previously recognised federal legislative authority while rejecting the idea that the federal government necessarily holds an exclusive monopoly over the provision of lottery services.
Those decisions subsequently strengthened arguments for broader subnational participation.
States and Municipalities Are Not Identical
A key unresolved question is whether the same principles applied to states can automatically extend to municipalities.
Supporters of local lotteries argue that constitutional autonomy supports such an interpretation.
Opponents warn that unrestricted municipal expansion could fragment the market and undermine federal regulation.
Regulatory Fragmentation Risk
A proliferation of local lottery regimes could create significant regulatory complexity.
Brazil could end up with substantial differences between municipalities in areas including:
- Licensing.
- Technical standards.
- Advertising.
- Enforcement.
- Taxation.
- Player protection.
Connection with Sports Betting
The debate became more significant following the expansion of fixed-odds sports betting.
The constitutional challenge argues that certain businesses could use municipal lottery authorisations to offer products outside the federal betting regime.
Municipal lotteries therefore have direct implications for Brazil‘s broader regulated betting market.
Federal Betting Framework
Brazil currently operates a federal authorisation regime for fixed-odds betting.
Companies must comply with specific national requirements to participate in the regulated market.
Parallel municipal licences could create conflicting interpretations regarding which products can legally be supplied.
Injunction Suspended Municipal Lotteries
In December 2025, Nunes Marques issued an interim injunction suspending municipal lottery operations throughout Brazil.
The decision affected both existing schemes and certain procedures linked to new projects.
Laws, Tenders and Operations Suspended
The injunction had a broad scope covering:
- Municipal lottery services.
- Local legislation authorising the activities.
- Ongoing tender procedures.
- Operations already licensed.
The order remains the most significant practical consequence of ADPF 1212 pending a final decision.
R$500,000 Daily Fine
The injunction established a daily penalty of R$500,000 for municipalities and companies breaching the suspension.
This demonstrates the Court’s determination to preserve the status quo until the constitutional dispute is resolved.
Impact on Operators
The suspension directly affects companies that secured or sought municipal authorisations.
Commercial projects based on local lottery licences have been put on hold.
Operators therefore have a significant interest in the Supreme Court reaching a definitive conclusion.
Impact on Municipal Governments
The decision also has financial consequences for local authorities.
Municipalities planning to use lottery services as an additional revenue source cannot proceed normally while the injunction remains effective.
This helps explain the growing involvement of municipal organisations in the proceedings.
National Front of Mayors Already Participating
In April, the National Front of Mayors, FNP, was also admitted as an amicus curiae.
The organisation brings together Brazilian state capitals and municipalities with more than 80,000 inhabitants.
Its admission significantly strengthened the municipal voice in the dispute.
FNP Defends Financial Autonomy
The FNP argues that lotteries can strengthen local-government finances.
Revenue generated from the services could support local public policies.
It therefore views a nationwide prohibition as a restriction on municipal financial autonomy.
Economic Weight of FNP Members
The municipalities represented by the FNP account for around 61% of Brazil‘s population and approximately 75% of national GDP.
Their economic significance underlines the potential scale of the ruling.
Request to Lift the Injunction
The FNP previously asked the Court to revoke the nationwide suspension.
The admission of further participants means additional arguments will now be available before the final ruling.
Injunction Still Requires Full Court Review
Nunes Marques’ interim order has not yet been fully confirmed by the Supreme Court’s plenary.
The Court must ultimately decide whether to uphold, modify or overturn the suspension.
Flávio Dino’s Procedural Request
Review of the injunction remains pending after a procedural request from Justice Flávio Dino moved consideration towards the Court’s physical plenary.
This has delayed a definitive decision.
No Confirmed Hearing Date
The Supreme Court has not yet officially scheduled the final hearing of ADPF 1212.
Municipalities, operators and public bodies therefore continue to face uncertainty.
Wider Federalism Implications
The case extends beyond gambling.
It concerns the limits of municipal autonomy when set against areas in which the federal government has national legislative authority.
The eventual ruling could consequently influence broader interpretations of Brazil‘s federal structure.
Fiscal Significance
Local lotteries also have an important fiscal dimension.
Municipal governments see them as a potential alternative revenue stream for public programmes.
ABRASF’s involvement adds a specialist perspective on those financial implications.
Legal Certainty for the Market
A definitive Supreme Court ruling could deliver much-needed legal certainty.
Operators currently face uncertainty around which governments can legally establish lotteries and issue relevant authorisations.
A nationwide judgment could clarify the respective powers of federal, state and municipal authorities.
Compliance Costs
Regulatory certainty is particularly important for private operators.
Businesses need to know which licences are valid, which products they can supply and which regulator supervises them.
A highly fragmented municipal system could materially increase compliance costs.
Autonomy Versus Centralisation
The proceedings place two principles in tension.
One is the constitutional autonomy of Brazil‘s subnational governments.
The other is the need for a coherent national framework for digital gambling activities capable of reaching consumers across jurisdictional boundaries.
Municipal lotteries sit directly at the intersection of those objectives.
Industry Context
Brazil‘s lottery and betting market is undergoing substantial regulatory transformation.
While the federal government consolidates the national fixed-odds betting framework, states and municipalities continue to defend or expand their own lottery powers.
ADPF 1212 has therefore become one of the most important cases for determining how these different regulatory levels will coexist.
Next Steps and Impact
ADPF 1212 remains pending before the full Federal Supreme Court.
The admission of ABRASF and Itaquaquecetuba increases the diversity of perspectives available to the justices before they decide the case.
Meanwhile, the nationwide injunction suspending municipal lotteries remains in force, carrying daily fines of R$500,000 for non-compliance.
The final judgment will have direct consequences for municipalities, operators and Brazil‘s federal gambling structure, as the Court must determine whether cities have constitutional authority to establish and operate lottery services or whether that activity belongs to other levels of government.
Editó: @fonta
