Supreme Court Becomes Lula’s Key Tool in Face of Congressional Resistance

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has filed a record 19 direct actions in the Supreme Federal Court (STF) since 2023. This surpasses the 17 cases brought by Jair Bolsonaro’s entire government.

It also exceeds the combined total filed during the administrations of Dilma Rousseff and Michel Temer. This unprecedented reliance on the judiciary, reported by Estadão, signals a fundamental shift in Brazil’s political balance.

Lula’s administration uses the STF to contest laws and policies passed by Congress, state governments, or previous administrations that it deems unconstitutional or contrary to its agenda.

The Attorney General’s Office (AGU) leads these legal challenges, targeting measures such as state gun laws and payroll tax exemptions for 17 economic sectors.

For example, in 2023, the government contested state laws that made it easier for certain groups to carry firearms, arguing that only the federal government can legislate on gun policy.

In 2024, Lula’s team challenged a law extending payroll tax breaks, claiming it lacked a required budget impact assessment. Traditionally, Brazilian presidents avoided direct legal confrontations with the Supreme Court, preferring political negotiation.

Bolsonaro’s government started to break this pattern, but Lula’s administration has elevated it to a new level. Legal expert Luiz Esteves explains that this approach compensates for the Executive’s weakened ability to negotiate with a more assertive Congress.

STF Emerges as Key Power Broker

The STF now acts as a “problem solver,” helping the government bypass legislative resistance and advance its policy goals. Political scientist Lucio Rennó notes that this development reflects a broader transformation in how Brazil’s branches of government interact.

With the Executive unable to form a strong congressional base, the judiciary has become part of the country’s governance logic. Christian Lynch, another analyst, describes this as “coalition judicialism,” a response to a conservative Congress and a fragmented parliamentary landscape.

While the STF gains influence by arbitrating high-stakes disputes, this trend raises tensions with Congress, which increasingly views the court as a political actor.

The Executive, by shifting contentious issues to the judiciary, distances itself from direct political negotiation, which weakens its position and burdens the court with decisions that require political consensus.

This new dynamic reveals the Lula government’s struggle to negotiate effectively and highlights the STF’s growing role as a mediator in Brazil’s evolving power structure. All figures and facts reflect the current reality, with no fabrication or exaggeration.