The problem of the mandatory summary in briefs submitted to the Superior Court of Justice

a stylistic requirement as welcome as it is unconstitutional

Abstract

Amendment No. 53/2026 to the Internal Rules of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (Regimento Interno do Superior Tribunal de Justiça, RISTJ) added Article 343-A, which now requires, in the initial pleadings of original actions and in appeals directed to the Court, a summary of the factual and legal grounds, the relief sought, the content of the challenged decisions, and the statutory provisions invoked, “pursuant to a regulatory act of the Court’s Presidency.” This article examines the provision along two dimensions: a) as to form, it argues that the internal rules of courts may not establish new formal regularity requirements for procedural filings, since this is a matter reserved to federal statute (Articles 22(I) and 96(I)(a) of the Brazilian Constitution), and that, even if one adopts a more flexible view of the normative power of internal rules, there is no statutory delegation or legislative gap that could justify implementing the requirement through internal rules; and b) as to substance, it argues that the analytical summary, although not a formal admissibility requirement unless and until a federal statute establishes it as such, is a valuable legal writing technique, one that lawyers have good strategic reasons to adopt of their own accord. The article further analyzes what the procedural effects of noncompliance with the new requirement will be (or should be), and what the strategic effects of compliance with it will be (or may be).