This week, Law No. 15,484/2026 was enacted without vetoes, regulating the relevance of the federal matter under non-constitutional law, established by Constitutional Amendment No. 125/2022 as a requirement for the admissibility of special appeals. The introduction of this new appellate filter is part of a set of measures aimed at streamlining the performance of the Superior Court of Justice, focusing the Court’s activities on matters that transcend the individual interests of the parties involved. In practice, the relevance requirement resembles the general repercussion mechanism applied by the Federal Supreme Court to extraordinary appeals.
The regulation formalizes a constitutional model established nearly four years ago. During this period, the application of the filter remained suspended pursuant to Administrative Enunciation No. 8 of the Superior Court of Justice, precisely because the Constitution itself conditioned its enforceability on the enactment of regulatory legislation. The enactment of Law No. 15,484/2026 concludes this transitional period and inaugurates a new stage in the admissibility of special appeals.
The constitutional framework and the hypotheses of presumed relevance
Paragraph 2 of Article 105 of the Federal Constitution requires the appellant to demonstrate that the legal issue submitted to the Superior Court of Justice exceeds the subjective interests of the parties from an economic, political, social, or legal perspective. Paragraph 3 establishes a list of situations in which the relevance of the federal matter is presumed, including: (i) criminal proceedings; (ii) administrative misconduct actions; (iii) actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds 500 minimum wages; (iv) actions that may result in ineligibility; (v) appeals filed against decisions that contradict the prevailing case law of the Superior Court of Justice; and (vi) other situations provided for by law.
From an economic standpoint, the constitutional decision to grant differentiated treatment to disputes involving significant amounts may face practical challenges in the application of the new system. This is because the amount attributed to a claim does not always correspond to the actual economic impact of the dispute, particularly in cases where the extent of the economic benefit is only determined during the enforcement or liquidation phase of the judgment. In such situations, a special appeal may not initially fall within the constitutionally presumed relevance criteria, even though it may later be established that the dispute involved an economic value exceeding the legal threshold.
In such circumstances, attorneys will be responsible for concretely demonstrating the existence of relevance in the cases they represent, considering that the constitutional list was not designed as an exhaustive catalogue, but rather as a minimum set of situations in which the transcendence of the federal matter is objectively recognized. Outside these circumstances, the party must demonstrate that the dispute presents legal, economic, political, or social relevance sufficient to justify review by the Superior Court.
What changes with the entry into force of Law No. 15,484/2026?
Unlike the initial discussions surrounding the former Bill No. 3,804/2023, which considered expanding the hypotheses of presumed relevance, the enacted text adopted a model focused on systemic efficiency. Accordingly, the objective is to restrict access to the Superior Court of Justice to genuinely relevant disputes, strengthening its role as a Court of Precedents, dedicated to establishing legal doctrines rather than resolving a large number of individual cases.
From a procedural standpoint, special appeals must now include a specific preliminary section demonstrating the transcendence of the matter. As a general rule, the analysis of this requirement will be conducted in an in-person session, except in cases where the reporting justice votes to deny recognition of relevance or to reaffirm the Court’s prevailing case law. Additionally, Law No. 15,484/2026 grants the reporting justice the authority to allow third parties to submit statements, provided they are represented by qualified legal counsel.
Regarding the temporal application of the new rules, the Law establishes that the demonstration of the relevance of the federal legal issue will be required for special appeals filed against decisions published after its entry into force. At the same time, it provides that, once relevance is recognized or rejected by the Superior Court of Justice, the procedural and substantive effects of such decision will apply to pending proceedings before the Court itself and before lower courts. Therefore, the regulation distinguishes between the applicability of the new admissibility requirement and the effects of judgments issued under the relevance system.
Once the relevance of the federal issue is recognized, the reporting justice may order the total or partial suspension, nationwide, of all individual or collective proceedings addressing the same legal issue, for a period of up to six months, extendable for an equal period when a public hearing or third-party participation is deemed necessary.
The new framework seeks to strengthen the uniform interpretation function of the Superior Court of Justice through the appreciation of its precedents. To this end, it introduces amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure authorizing reporting justices to summarily deny appeals filed against decisions that comply with the Superior Court’s understanding established in judgments where relevance has been recognized, as well as to grant such appeals when the challenged decision contradicts that understanding.
Similarly, federal law authorizes state courts and federal regional courts to refuse to process special appeals involving matters whose relevance has been rejected.
Finally, Law No. 15,484/2026 introduces a significant change by authorizing, after all ordinary judicial levels have been exhausted, the filing of a constitutional complaint to ensure compliance with decisions issued in special appeals where the relevance of the federal matter has been recognized. This reinforces the authority of qualified precedents and requires their effective observance by lower courts.
The role of legal practice and the new paradigm
This new scenario will require litigators to adopt an even more strategic, assertive, and qualified approach. Legal professionals will be responsible for developing specific and sophisticated arguments capable of demonstrating the relevance of the federal matter and overcoming the filter that will now operate as a requirement for appellate admissibility, particularly because the rejection of a special appeal due to lack of relevance, pursuant to Article 1,035-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, will not be subject to further appeal. Therefore, demonstrating relevance should not be limited to the special appeal itself but should be structured throughout the entire litigation process before the lower courts.
The Superior Court of Justice will be responsible for finding the appropriate balance between rationalizing access to special appeals and preserving its constitutional mission of ensuring uniform interpretation of federal law. At the same time, the relevance filter is expected to shift to state and federal regional courts the final resolution of numerous federal law disputes that do not transcend the subjective interests of the parties, reinforcing the need for increasingly technical and qualified legal practice from the earliest stages of litigation.
Therefore, it is safe to say that the regulation of the relevance of federal matters does not conclude the debate surrounding the mechanism. On the contrary, it inaugurates a new phase for the Brazilian appellate system, in which the Superior Court of Justice will be responsible for giving concrete meaning to the new legal framework through the development of qualified precedents. Lower courts, in turn, will assume an increasingly important role in the definitive resolution of federal law disputes that do not overcome the relevance threshold. Legal professionals will need to adopt an even more rigorous approach, structuring, from the outset of litigation, the demonstration of the relevance of legal issues submitted for review by the Superior Court of Justice.
