Brazil Supreme Court may leave betting ban dispute to government

On a public hearing that took place yesterday, 3 November, Justice Luiz Fux, mentioned that Brazil’s Supreme Court (STF) could leave the final dispute over proposed betting ban to the the government’s legislative and executive branches, instead of making an immediate ruling. The Attorney General’s Office (PGR) declined to reveal its position on the measure. Deputy Attorney General Luiz Augusto Santos Lima said that the PGR haven’t reviewed the legal challenge against the provisional measure restricting fixed-odds betting yet. He added that the arguments presented during the latest hearing would help the Attorney General assess the matter. He said: I cannot, in any way, anticipate a value judgment, as I am not the natural prosecutor for the case; that is the Attorney Genera Decision may be done by the government At the end of the hearing, Justice Fux suggested that Supreme Court might return the issue to the government and Congress. Fux acknowledged that the judiciary may lack the institutional capacity and expertise to resolve some aspects of the betting dispute. However, he noted that the Court would still have to consider eight constitutional challenges related to the matter. He stated: I hold the view that the great virtue of the Courts, at certain times, is to decide not to decide and to return the resolution of these issues to the proper forum. He also stressed that any decision would be made collectively by the justices, rather than by him alone. Economic and social impact of the betting ban Fux identified numerous questions raised at the hearing, such as the economic effect of gambling legislation, illicit gambling, and crime syndicates. Other subjects discussed included the remuneration of players, the position of Brazil’s football, legal safety of business operations, and the threat of rogue litigation. Fux mentioned, among others, opinions regarding women’s gambling practices and their possible influence on the purchase of basic necessities. He stated the hearing was successful and that the information obtained would be communicated to his colleagues. In his opinion, the discussions were satisfactory but further hearings might take place. The Supreme Court has not made a ruling on the provisional bill yet.