The hearing is over. It did not put a licensed sportsbook or online casino back in front of you. Brazil’s Supreme Court closed the public session on Provisional Measure 1.394 on Tuesday, 3 November 2026. Justice Luiz Fux, the rapporteur, did not suspend the ban. The decisions list on ADI 8027, read on 6 November 2026, still ends with his dispatch of 1 November. There is no order dated 3, 4, 5 or 6 November. G1 reported on 4 November that Fux said he needs time to write the vote, and that Fachin indicated a joint docket. That is a news report of a remark. It is not an order. If a brand says the Court reopened betting overnight, it is ahead of the docket.
The Court’s own note of the closed hearing went up at 21:47 on 3 November. The movements tab for that day shows hearing-notice mandates, a petition filed at 10:31, publication of the 1 November dispatch, and a line that the file is with the rapporteur. There is no judgment and no injunction. The movements tab was last read on 4 November. The decisions tab was read again on 6 November and still has no later order.
What Fux said, and what he did not sign
The case is a precautionary claim inside Direct Action of Unconstitutionality 8027. The unique number is 0186203-73.2026.1.00.0000. The Associação Nacional de Jogos e Loterias filed it. Fux is the rapporteur. The same measure is also before the Court in ADIs 8024, 8028 and 8035. The older betting cases are ADIs 7721, 7723 and 7749.
The Court’s write-up says Fux repeated his worry about public-health effects, and he pointed back to the first hearing, in November 2024. He also restated the view in his vote in Extraordinary Appeal 966.177, a case with general repercussion: there is no fundamental right to exploit games of chance. That sentence is his vote in another case. It is not a new holding from Tuesday.
He called this hearing so the other side could be heard. The measure is a later fact than the 2024 sessions. At the close, the Court reports, he said the speakers brought information those sessions did not have, especially on economic impact, illegal betting, organised crime, athletes’ rights, and legal certainty. He added that some of this can be settled outside the judiciary. If the Court does have to decide, he said, it should do it with rationality and prudence.
That is a closing remark. It is not an order. The Attorney General’s Office had asked him for the hearing. It got the hearing. It did not get a suspension.
The room argued. The measure did not move.
Treat every number below as what a speaker said, in the Court’s write-up or in the Attorney General’s own note. They are not a new official bulletin released on 6 November.
Attorney General Jorge Messias defended the measure as constitutional. In the AGU note of the session he said the state can and should stop an economic activity when the safeguards are not enough. He cited preliminary Finance Ministry figures for 2025: federally authorised firms took R$220.6 billion in deposits, which he said came to R$36.9 billion in operator revenue. He described that revenue as bettors’ losses, not company net profit. He also cited a Datafolha poll published on 1 October, which he said showed 78 percent support for banning bets and online casinos. Those are his citations. This article does not reprint the spreadsheet or the poll.
Health minister Alexandre Padilha, in the Court’s account, defended the ban as public-health protection. He said demand in the public health system linked to gambling disorder grew by more than 200 percent between 2018 and 2026, and that 40 percent of 1.2 million people who asked to be self-excluded reported losing control of their betting. That is his statement to the hearing.
Victor Oliveira Fernandes, of the Justice Ministry’s digital-rights secretariat, said that between 25 September and 29 October the ministry asked for more than 36,000 illegal betting sites to come down, and took thousands of profiles, pages and groups offline. A takedown request is an enforcement claim made in the room. It is not a legal window for a site that is still up.
Clubs asked for time, and some of them asked for a split. Grêmio’s representative criticised the ten-day deadline for pulling sponsorships, argued for a transition of the kind he said European countries used, and said online casinos should be banned while sports betting stays under strict limits and ad rules. Vitória asked the Court to suspend the measure’s effects and to separate sports betting from online casino. Ponte Preta said the ban pushed people onto clandestine sites and asked for a revision or a transition. A speech from a club is not a licence. The measure still covers bets on real sports events and virtual online games whose result comes from a random generator. That second box is where licensed slots sat.
What you still cannot do
Nothing said on Tuesday reopens a wallet. The measure, published on 25 September, bans the running, offering, intermediation and advertising of fixed-odds lottery bets in Brazil, including a foreign operator that still serves a person who is in Brazil. Authorisations under Law 14.790 ended on 25 October. From 6 October the sites and apps had to be unreachable. There is no refund of the licence fee.
If a balance is still outstanding, use the bank-return path in the 20 October piece, then Caixa. A PIX transfer into a betting wallet after the cutoff is a breach, not a workaround.
Congress has still not voted
A provisional measure has the force of law until Congress converts it or the clock runs out. The National Congress page for MPV 1394/2026, read on 6 November 2026, still shows the current status as waiting for the joint committee to be installed. The deliberation window on that page runs from 25 September to 23 November 2026. Urgency that blocks the rest of the agenda is marked from 9 November. Ninety-nine amendments were filed. The same page records that amendments 12, 18, 19, 20 and 55 were withdrawn by their authors.
A joint committee has to report before either house votes. Article 62, paragraph 9, of the Constitution says so, and the Congress calendar cites that rule. Urgency on 9 November does not skip the committee.
The same article extends the measure once, for the same length of time, if both houses have not finished voting within 60 days of publication. The count pauses while Congress is in recess. The page, read on 6 November 2026, does not show that extension as applied. Do not invent a second end date, and do not treat a possible extension as a reopening. An extension would keep the ban in force for longer. It would not restore a licence.
What to do this week
- Do not deposit because a stream, a club statement, or a banner says Brazil is open again. The docket does not say that.
- If a balance is still out from before the shutdown, use the bank-return path in the 20 October piece, then Caixa. Do not move it to an offshore mirror.
- Treat Tuesday as argument. Wait for an order on ADI 8027, or for Congress to convert the measure or let the clock run out.
- The joint committee is not shown as installed. Urgency starts on 9 November. The deliberation window on the Congress page runs to 23 November. A constitutional extension, if the vote is still open, lengthens the ban. It does not lift it.
- A club asking for sports bets to return, or for online casinos to stay banned, is a request. It is not the rule you can bet under.
18+. Only a bankroll you can lose, and only where the operator is allowed to take you.
Sources: STF news, 3 November 2026, 21:47; ADI 8027 docket; decisions tab read on 6 November 2026; movements tab read on 4 November 2026; AGU note, 3 November 2026, 16:40; MP 1.394/2026; Constitution article 62, as amended by Constitutional Amendment 32/2001; Congress, MPV 1394/2026. Speaker figures are attributed to the person who said them. They are not restated here as a fresh official release.
Published: 06. November 2026
Anything incorrect or missing?
