Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-27T13:08:37.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Timing Control without Docket Control

How Individual Justices Shape the Brazilian Supreme Court’s Agenda

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2022

Diego Werneck Arguelhes
Fundação Getulio Vargas Law School
Ivar A. Hartmann*
Fundação Getulio Vargas Law School
Contact the corresponding author at


The Brazilian Supreme Court has developed an informal mechanism of timing control: each justice has the power (pedido de vista) to request more time to study the files of a given case. In this article, we use a database of over 1.5 million cases to calculate vista request duration and compare vista behavior to other activities in which caseload and the justice’s efficiency play a role. Our results show that vistas can function as an individual power, unconstrained by the Court’s internal rules of procedure, to indefinitely remove cases from the agenda, in ways that cannot be explained by the Court’s workload. We also find initial evidence of the vistas being used for strategic purposes, when justices wait for a case to be decided in a more favorable composition or political context. These results suggest that comparative analyses of courts should look beyond formal rules of docket control to study informal means of delay.

Research Article
© 2017 by the Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association. All rights reserved.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Earlier versions of this article were presented in the conference “Empirical Studies on Constitutional Courts,” FGV Direito Rio, May 28, 2014, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, as well as in the Stanford International Junior Faculty Forum, October 11, 2014, in Stanford, CA, USA. We would like to thank Lee Epstein, Barry Friedman, Andrew Martin, Clifford Carrubba, Catalina Smulovitz, Julio Rios Figueroa, Paulo Furquim, Oscar Vilhena, Rogelio Perdomo, Gillian Hadfield, Anupam Chander, Setsuo Miyazawa, and Lawrence Friedman for the helpful debates in these two events. We are also thankful to Fernando Fontainha for sharing and discussing with us the results of the Oral History of the Supreme Court project at FGV Direito Rio; to Daniel Chada, for his crucial role in the development of the software that identified and gathered information on all the pedidos de vista; to Gabriel Dias, who made extensive checks on hundreds of cases to help improve the software; to Evan Rosevear, Thomaz Pereira, Leandro Ribeiro, Gregory Michener, and Miguel de Figueiredo for their helpful criticisms and suggestions to earlier versions of this article; and to the anonymous reviewers from the Journal of Law and Courts for their criticisms and suggestions.


Arguelhes, Diego Werneck, and Ivar Hartmann. 2015. “Pedido de vista é poder de veto.” Folha de São Paulo, April 15.Google Scholar
Benesh, Sara C., Saul Brenner, and Harold J. Spaeth. 2002. “Aggressive Grants by Affirm-Minded Justices.American Politics Research 30 (3): 219–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benvindo, Juliano Z. 2015. “Corporate Campaign Contributions in Brazil: Of Courts, Congresses, and the Agendas of Individual Justices.” Blog, Intenational Journal of Constitutional Law, July 3. Scholar
Brígido, Carolina. 2015. “STF deve voltar a discutir financiamento de campanhas no segundo semestre.” O Globo, June 27.Google Scholar
Carneiro, Luiz Orlando. 2013. “STF: Mais de 100 pedidos de vista devolvidos aguardam inclusão na pauta.” Jornal do Brasil, February 1. Scholar
Carneiro, Luiz Orlando, and Felipe Recondo. 2015. “Gilmar ataca ‘conspirata’ de PT e OAB em voto para manter doação de empresas.” JOTA, September 16. Scholar
Comella, Victor Ferreres. 2004. “The Consequences of Centralizing Constitutional Review: Some Thoughts on Judicial Activism.Texas Law Review 82 (7): 1705–36.Google Scholar
Conti, Mario Sergio. 2015. “Gilmar Mendes vai votar ainda em junho o financiamento de campanhas.” Globonews, June 5. Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Jack Knight. 2013. “Reconsidering Judicial Preferences.Annual Review of Political Science 16:11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Jack Knight, and Olga Shvetsova. 2001. “The Role of Constitutional Courts in the Establishment and Maintenance of Democratic Systems of Government.Law and Society Review 35 (1): 117–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, William M. Landes, and Richard A. Posner. 2015. “The Best for Last: The Timing of U.S. Supreme Court Decisions.Duke Law Journal 64 (6): 991–1022.Google Scholar
Falcão, Joaquim. 2013. “Direito, mídia e opinião pública.” In Mensalão: Diário de um julgamento, ed. Joaquim Falcão. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Falcão, Joaquim. 2015. “Por que Lewandowski não pauta a ação da OAB sobre financiamento de campanha retida por Gilmar?” JOTA, June 10. Scholar
Falcão, Joaquim, Pablo de Carmargo Cerdeira, and Diego Werneck Arguelhes. 2011. I Relatório Supremo em Números: O Múltiplo Supremo. Rio de Janeiro: FGV.Google Scholar
Falcão, Joaquim. 2012. O Supremo Tribunal Federal Processual: Estudos de direito público em homenagem ao Ministro Carlos Mário da Silva Velloso. São Paulo: LexMagister.Google Scholar
Falcão, Joaquim, Ivar A. Hartmann, and Vitor P. Chaves. 2014. III Relatório Supremo em Números: O Supremo e o tempo. Rio de Janeiro: FGV.Google Scholar
Falcão, Márcio. 2015. “Veto a doações privadas é golpe petista, vota ministro Gilmar Mendes.” Folha de São Paulo, September 16.Google Scholar
Folha de São Paulo. 2015. “Vista não é veto.” April 18.Google Scholar
Fontana, David. 2011. “Docket Control and the Success of Constitutional Courts.” In Comparative Constitutional Law, ed. Tom Ginsburg and Rosalind Dixon, 624–41. Northampton, MA: Elgar.Google Scholar
Frota, Marcel. 2015. “Gilmar Mendes critica pressão sobre financiamento de campanha por empresas.” Último Segundo, September 16. Scholar
Fux, Luiz. 2008. Curso de direito processual civil. Vol. 1, Processo de conhecimento. 4th ed. Rio de Janeiro: Forense.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L. 1983.“From Simplicity to Complexity: The Development of Theory in the Study of Judicial Behavior.Political Behavior 5 (1): 7–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, Tom. 2003. Judicial Review in New Democracies. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junior, Ulpiano. 1974. “O art 555 paragráfo único, do novo codigo de processo civil e o pedido de vista do relator.Revista Forense 70 (246).Google Scholar
Klafke, Guilherme F. 2010. “Vícios no processo decisório do Supremo Tribunal Federal.” LL.M. paper, Brazilian Society of Public Law, São Paulo.Google Scholar
Machado, Alexandre. 2006. “Presidente do STF demora até oito anos para analisar ações.” Consultor Jurídico, March 3. Scholar
Machado, Antônio Cláudio da C. 2008. Código de processo civil interpretado. 2nd ed. Barueri: Manole.Google Scholar
Marcato, Antonio Carlos, ed. 2008. Código de processo civil interpretado. 3rd ed. São Paulo: Atlas.Google Scholar
Montenegro Filho, Misael. 2010. Código de processo civil: Comentado e interpretado. 2nd ed. São Paulo: Atlas.Google Scholar
Moreira, José Carlos B. 2006. Comentários ao código de processo civil. 13th ed. Rio de Janeiro: Forense.Google Scholar
Oliveira, Fabiana Luci de. 2012. “Coalizões e panelinhas: Redes de votação no Supremo Tribunal Federal.Revista de Sociologia e Política 20 (44): 139–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, Saylon A. 2010. “Os pedidos de vista no Supremo Tribunal Federal: Uma análise quantitativa nos casos de controle concentrado de constitucionalidade.” LL.M. paper, Brazilian Society of Public Law, São Paulo.Google Scholar
Portal Fórum. 2015. “Gilmar Mendes é denunciado no CNJ por barrar ação contra financiamento privado.” March 18. Scholar
Recondo, Felipe. 2015a. “Lewandowski pressiona por devolução de vistas.” JOTA, March 11. Scholar
Recondo, Felipe. 2015b. “Não devolve: Gilmar Mendes diz que Congresso deve definir financiamento de campanha.” JOTA, March 17. Scholar
Ribeiro, Caio G. 2011. “Voto-vista e deliberação no Supremo Tribunal Federal.” LL.M. paper, Brazilian Society of Public Law, São Paulo.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, Stênio. 2015. “Manifestantes cobram voto vista de Gilmar Mendes ao financiamento de campanhas.” Agência Brasil, April 8. Scholar
Rocha, Jean-Paul Veiga da. 2004. “A capacidade normativa de conjuntura no direito econômico: O déficit democrático da regulação financeira.” PhD diss., University of São Paulo.Google Scholar
Rocha, Jean-Paul Veiga da. 2014. “Os incríveis poderes normativos do Conselho Monetário Nacional e do Banco Central: O caso paradigmático do vácuo regulatório (STF, RE 286–963–5/MG).Revista de Direito Público da Economia 12 (48): 107–30.Google Scholar
Schreiber, Mariana. 2015. “Decisão do STF sobre doações aguarda voto de ministro há um ano.” BBC Brasil, April 2. Scholar
Silva, Virgílio Afonso. 2013. “Deciding without Deliberating.International Journal of Constitutional Law 11 (3): 557–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Su, Yen-tu, and Han-wei Ho. 2014. “Judging, Sooner or Later: A Study of Decision Timing in Taiwan’s Constitutional Court.” Unpublished manuscript, Social Science Research Network. Scholar
Supremo Tribunal Federal. 2016. Relatório de atividades 2015. Brasília: Supremo Tribunal Federal.Google Scholar
Vasconcellos, Marcos. 2015. “Para Gilmar Mendes, pedido de vista amadureceu debate sobre financiamento.” Consultor Jurídico, April 24. Scholar
Veríssimo, Marcos Paulo. 2008. “A Constituição de 1988, vinte anos depois: Suprema Corte e ‘ativismo judicial à brasileira.’Revista Direito GV 4 (2): 407–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar