ABSTRACT
In the current pandemic context, the Supreme Court (STF) is a rich field of research for understanding how political-ideological disputes are intertwined with bureaucratic-administrative issues. Authors argue that the STF tends to issue more favorable rulings to the Federal Government than to the states or municipalities in interfederative disputes. This paper aimed to analyze and reflect on the decision-making impact of the STF on government actions within the debate on interfederative relation- ships, considering the current context and verifying whether the pandemic changes such trend of favoring the Federal Government. Thirty-three collegiate rulings were made using the keywords “Coronavirus” and “Covid-19” and the first half of 2020 as a chronological landmark. A typology was constructed for the analysis: ‘Regulation and Territorial Management’, ‘Health Policies and Services’, ‘Employment and Income’, ‘Public Finance’, and ‘Others’. In a context marked by tensions and omissions, the role of the STF in resolving conflicts of interfederative competence was reinforced, suggesting an inversion of the centralist tendency in Brazilian jurisprudence. On the other hand, we could question the extent to which this situation could reinforce the role of subnational entities and, therefore, of Brazilian federalism.
KEYWORDS
Health’s judicialization; Pandemics; Covid-19; Federalism