Brazil's Supreme Court (STF) holds this Tuesday (25) the second and final day of a public hearing on the Anti-Gang Law (Law 15.358/2026), the country's new legal framework against organized crime, approved by Congress and signed by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in March. The debate is led by Justice Alexandre de Moraes, rapporteur of the four constitutional challenges against the law, and gathers 48 authorities, experts and civil society representatives in the First Chamber's session room, broadcast on the court's TV channel and YouTube.
The law is targeted by four direct actions of unconstitutionality (ADIs 7952, 7956, 7957 and 7958), filed by a mayors' association (ANPV), the Brazilian Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (Abracrim), a national union of female criminal lawyers and legal academics (Unaa) and an association of members of the Prosecutor's Office (Conamp). According to the court, the testimony collected over the two days will inform the full bench's judgment of the challenges, which has yet to take place.
Opening the sessions on Monday (24), Moraes defended cooperation between police forces and state governments, saying organized crime cannot be fought in a "each state does its own" style. "Criminal organizations today are interstate, international. If there is no coordination, no cooperation, we will not move forward," he said. The court's longest-serving justice, Gilmar Mendes, pointed to what he called the paradox of nationally organized crime being confronted by a state that still acts in a fragmented way. Moraes also said that simply raising prison terms is not enough to reduce crime: "Brazil jails a lot, but unfortunately jails badly."
Challenged provisions
The lawsuits contest, among other provisions, the creation of crimes with what the plaintiffs consider vague definitions and sentences of up to 60 years for leaders of "ultraviolent" criminal organizations; the ban on parole and the end of a benefit paid to inmates' dependents (known as auxílio-reclusão) for those convicted of "structured social domination" crimes; a presumption in favor of pretrial detention in such cases; and the trial of homicides committed by members of these organizations by panels of judges instead of a jury. Also challenged are the loss, freezing and early sale of assets before a final conviction, the inclusion of names in a national database of ultraviolent organizations with a presumption of affiliation, and the monitoring and recording of inmates' meetings with visitors and lawyers.
Testimony
On Tuesday, Alessandra Martins Gonçalves Jirardi, of the mayors' association, said the law's sentences will in practice amount to life imprisonment and called the monitoring of lawyer-client communications unconstitutional. "Fighting organized crime is a non-negotiable duty of the state. Punishment is necessary, but no legitimate goal turns unconstitutional means into constitutional ones," she said, according to G1.
Taking the opposite view, federal prosecutor Vladimir Aras, speaking for the National Association of Federal Prosecutors (ANPR), defended the law's asset measures, such as forfeiture without a final conviction. "We are looking at tools that are extremely important for the economic suffocation of crime," he said. Helena Morgado, representing state and federal district public defenders' offices, asked the court to review what she called disproportionate sentences and suggested using penalties for related crimes already in the legal system, as in the Genocide Law. On Monday evening, Moraes also met with court presidents at the STF to discuss the Judiciary's role in the face of the new reality of organized crime, according to the court's press office.