THE BRAZILIAN FEDERAL SUPREME COURT AND ITS UNDERSTANDING OF THE AMICUS CURIAE

TOWARDS RESPONSIVE JUDICIAL REVIEW

Abstract

This article examines the evolving role of the amicus curiae within the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (STF), highlighting its potential to foster responsive judicial review as proposed by Professor Rosalind Dixon. The institution of the amicus curiae, recognized in Brazilian law by the Code of Civil Procedure and specific STF regulations, aims to enhance judicial deliberations through external contributions. However, the Court's restrictive practices—such as the non-appealability of decisions rejecting amicus curiae requests, the exclusion of natural persons from participation, and the prohibition of clarifying motions (embargos de declaração) by amici—often undermine its democratic and cooperative potential. These limitations reflect a broader tension between procedural rigor and the Court's capacity to adopt a pluralist form of judicial review. Drawing on international frameworks, especially Professor Dixon's theory of responsive judicial review, this study emphasizes the need for the Court to adopt more inclusive practices. A model of responsive judicial review requires courts to be open to diverse perspectives, rigorously observe legal norms, and maintain a firm commitment to democratic principles. The article proposes specific reforms to address these challenges, advocating for clearer criteria for the admission of amici curiae, the implementation of more robust procedural guarantees for participation, and a systematic interpretation of existing legal provisions. By aligning its practices with constitutional principles, the STF can foster a more dialogic and democratic judicial process, thereby strengthening its institutional legitimacy. This analysis not only critiques current practices but also envisions a path for the Court to reconcile procedural rigor with the demands of a pluralistic society, ensuring that the amicus curiae acts as a true ally of constitutional democracy.