Public Hearings at Brazil’s Supreme Court: How Civil Society Connects to the Court’s Debates

Listen to this article

by PublicABCP

Translated and reviewed by Matheus Lucas Hebling

The article “Public hearings at the Brazilian Supreme Court: from strategic litigation to resolution” seeks to identify the mechanisms of connection and transmission of the deliberations that took place in the public hearings held by Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal, STF) between 2007 and 2019, investigating how civil society operates within the country’s highest court. The work is authored by Eduardo Moreira da Silva (UFMG), Antonio Ribeiro (UFOP), Marjorie Marona (UFMG), and Lucas Fernandes de Magalhães (Ibmec).

The research brings together two theoretical agendas: that of conflict resolution in constitutional courts and that of legal mobilization by interest groups and social movements. To this end, the authors employed affiliation network analysis techniques (also called bimodal, or two-mode, networks), which examine how different organizations relate to one another based on their joint participation as presenters in more than one hearing.

The methodological scope is restricted to entities formally recognized by the STF as participants in the public hearings, without making inferences about the content of the statements or the Court’s decisions.

The results indicate that civil society organizations were the principal connectors of the public hearings in the period analyzed, accounting for approximately 40% of the entities present at more than two sessions. These organizations played a central role in articulating issues such as abortion, public health policy, affirmative action in higher education, and religious education.

The recurring involvement of entities such as Conectas Human Rights, the CNBB (National Conference of Brazilian Bishops), and the Anis Institute of Bioethics demonstrates a strategic presence in sensitive and recurring debates at the STF. The data also reveal the formation of thematic clusters that, by sharing recurring presenters, form deliberative sub-networks within the Court.

The study suggests that participation in multiple hearings may indicate a pattern of thematic connection between deliberative arenas, contributing to the circulation of arguments and demands.

However, the authors stress that, in order to assert the existence of effective mechanisms of transmission between arenas, qualitative analyses of the statements presented at the hearings would be necessary. Moreover, the study acknowledges limitations such as the absence of information on the criteria for selecting presenters and the exclusion of organizations whose participation was denied or that acted indirectly.

By mapping the activity of organized actors in the STF’s public hearings, the article contributes to the debate on the limits and potential of these spaces as instruments of institutionalized participation. The approach adopted makes it possible to understand how certain issues and organizations are articulated within the Judiciary, broadening our understanding of the forms of political mobilization surrounding constitutional jurisdiction in Brazil.

In summary:

The study analyzed 28 public hearings held by the STF between 2007 and 2019.
Civil society organizations accounted for about 40% of the entities present at more than two hearings.
Issues such as abortion, public health, and religious education concentrated the greatest participation.
Conectas, the CNBB, and the Anis Institute of Bioethics are among the principal recurring actors.
The study found that certain organizations took part in multiple hearings on related issues, suggesting a possible connection between these debates, though without analyzing the content of the statements.
The authors point to limitations such as the absence of data on rejected presenters or selection criteria.

About the Authors

Eduardo Moreira da Silva is an adjunct professor in the Department of Political Science at the Federal University of Minas Gerais (Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, UFMG). He holds a PhD and a master’s degree in Political Science from UFMG (2013 and 2007, respectively), an undergraduate degree in Social Sciences (UFMG, 2004), and a degree in Psychology (Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais, PUC-MG, 2002).

Antonio Ribeiro holds a PhD in Sociology, a master’s degree in Political Science, and a bachelor’s degree and teaching qualification (licenciatura) in Social Sciences, all from UFMG. He is an adjunct professor in the Department of Public Management at the Federal University of Ouro Preto (Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, UFOP) and leads the Observatory of Innovations, Networks, and Organizations Research Group (OIRO-UFOP). He is a collaborating faculty member in the Graduate Program in Sociology at UFMG and a permanent faculty member in the Professional Master’s Program in Public Administration (PROFIAP-UNIFAL-MG).

Marjorie Marona is a professor in the Department of Political Science at the Faculty of Philosophy and Human Sciences of UFMG (DCP/FAFICH/UFMG). She coordinates the Observatory of Justice in Brazil and Latin America (OJb-AL/UFMG) and is a researcher at the Institute of Democracy and the Democratization of Communication (INCT/IDDC).

Lucas Fernandes de Magalhães is a professor in the International Relations Unit of the Brazilian Institute of Capital Markets (Instituto Brasileiro de Mercados de Capitais, Ibmec) in Belo Horizonte. He holds a law degree from the Dom Helder Câmara School of Law (Escola Superior Dom Helder Câmara) and a master’s degree in Political Science from UFMG, where he is also a researcher at the Observatory of Brazilian Justice.