Constitutional scholars and political scientists advocate reducing the criminal jurisdiction of Brazil's Federal Supreme Court (STF) and placing strict limits on single-judge preliminary injunctions. The recommendations come from a survey conducted by Folha de S.Paulo with eight legal scholars examining institutional responses to the court's current crisis.

Most experts interviewed identified the rollback of special jurisdictional privileges for politicians (foro privilegiado) and the curbing of individual rulings that freeze legislation as urgent priorities. The researchers also proposed fixed term limits for Supreme Court justices and stricter qualification requirements for presidential nominees.

Scholars disagree on the timing of these changes. Eloísa Machado, a law professor at the Getulio Vargas Foundation (FGV Direito-SP), warned against voting on structural overhauls during an active institutional clash:

"It is a fragile situation vis-a-vis the other branches, which could trigger solutions that further unbalance the balance of power."

Maria Tereza Sadek, a political scientist at the University of São Paulo (USP), took the opposite view and demanded swift action.

"If action is not taken with some urgency, this crisis will only deepen and reach a point where, instead of a proposal to improve the Judiciary, we may end up with proposals that weaken it."

USP constitutional law professor Conrado Hübner Mendes noted that structural adjustments have inherent limitations. He said that institutional change throughout history happens slowly and requires persistence.

The National Congress currently holds several proposed constitutional amendments addressing court powers on its legislative docket. House and Senate leaders must now decide whether to schedule floor votes on bills limiting monocratic decisions and establishing judicial term limits.