Judicial intervention or deference in the area of ​​public health

Abstract

Background: Although the phenomenon of judicialization of public health issues is growing, it is important to understand the stance adopted by the Brazilian Judiciary in the face of this phenomenon. Problem: It is necessary to identify whether the Brazilian Judiciary adopts the paradigm of judicial deference or unrestricted interference. Objectives: To empirically determine, in specific cases related to public health, what stance is adopted by the Superior Court of Justice. Methods: Logical analysis of the discourse and content of decisions of the Superior Court of Justice that established binding public health theses. Results: In the cases analyzed, it was observed that the Superior Court of Justice shaped theses that interfere with the autonomy previously imagined by the Executive Branch. Conclusions: In the cases analyzed, the Superior Court of Justice reveals itself to be aligned with deference while at the same time not feeling intimidated to interfere when anchored in strong arguments.