The Supreme Federal Court (STF) faces controversial issues that Congress avoids legislating on.

After deciding on the conflicts regarding the Union's monopoly on lottery operations through the judgments of ADPFs 492 and 493 and ADI 4.986, the Supreme Federal Court – STF is preparing to face another controversial issue in the sector with the judgment of RE 966.177.

The Supreme Federal Court (STF) has not shied away from addressing controversial issues such as same-sex marriage, abortion, drugs, and now gambling—topics that the National Congress has always avoided tackling.

The legalization of gambling is one of these topics.

The legalization of gambling has been discussed in the National Congress for at least 30 years, with greater intensity in the last seven years.

Currently, there are two bills in the Senate (PLS 186/14) and in the Chamber (PL 442/91), which are ready to be considered and voted on by the Plenary of both houses and which legalize all forms of gambling.

The case of Bill 442/91 and its 23 attached projects is the most emblematic. Approved by the Special Committee on the Regulatory Framework for Games in the Chamber of Deputies on August 30, 2016, the proposal is with the Board of Directors awaiting scheduling by the Plenary. Due to a lack of consensus, the decision is made not to schedule the proposal.

The omission and lack of interest from Congress in addressing the issue of gambling forced the Supreme Court to settle yet another controversial issue in Brazilian society.

The outcome of the judgments in ADPFs 492 and 493 and ADI 4.986 encouraged those in favor of legalizing gambling and showed a positive environment for the judgment on the merits of RE 966.177.

If the majority of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) understands that article 50 of Decree-Law No. 3.688 of 1941 (Law of Criminal Offenses) was not received by the Federal Constitution, gambling will be decriminalized in the country.

In this case, the Executive branch will have to regulate and discipline the activity or issue a Provisional Measure prohibiting it. But since the government needs resources, we believe that opting for the second option would be very difficult.

If in 1941, in an ultraconservative and archaic society, the prohibition of gambling was already considered irrelevant, there is no point in maintaining it as a criminal offense in the 21st century.