## Facts

- Two abstract constitutional challenges were heard together by Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court sitting en banc.
- The Prosecutor-General of the Republic sought a constitutional interpretation of the Civil Code’s “stable union” provision so that same-sex couples would be recognized as a family entity with the same rights and duties as different-sex stable unions.
- The Governor of Rio de Janeiro challenged state-level interpretations and decisions that denied same-sex partners civil-service and social-benefit protections available to spouses or stable-union partners.
- The challenged practices treated constitutional and civil-code language referring to a stable union “between a man and a woman” as excluding same-sex couples, limiting access to family-law protections (e.g., pensions, leave, health and assistance benefits).
- During litigation, part of the state-law dispute became moot due to a change in Rio de Janeiro law extending certain benefits; the remaining request proceeded in a form aligned with the nationwide constitutional challenge.
- Multiple amici curiae participated, including civil-society and religious entities.

## Issues

1. Whether excluding same-sex couples from recognition as a “stable union” and family entity violates constitutional guarantees of human dignity, equality, freedom, and legal certainty.
2. Whether the Civil Code’s stable-union provision must be construed consistently with the Constitution to include same-sex couples and extend to them the same rights and duties as different-sex stable unions.
3. Whether constitutional protection of family permits limiting family recognition to different-sex couples absent an explicit constitutional prohibition of same-sex unions.

## Decision

- The Court unanimously ruled for the petitioners.
- The Court held that same-sex couples may form a “stable union” recognized as a family entity.
- The Court required extension to same-sex stable unions of all rights and duties applicable to different-sex stable unions.
- The Court reached this result by construing the relevant Civil Code provision in conformity with the Constitution.
- The ruling was given general and binding effect on the judiciary and public administration.

## Legal Principles

- Constitutional equality and human dignity prohibit discrimination based on sex, including discrimination tied to sexual orientation, absent a clear constitutional basis for unequal treatment.
- Individual autonomy and freedom protect intimate life choices, including the decision to form a family with a partner of the same sex.
- The constitutional concept of “family” is not restricted to a single model; it includes plural family forms centered on a public, enduring relationship with an intent to form a family.
- Where the Constitution does not forbid a form of family life, interpretive choices must favor constitutional rights and non-discrimination.
- When statutory text can be read consistently with constitutional guarantees, courts may adopt a constitution-conforming construction that preserves the provision while eliminating unconstitutional exclusion.

## Conclusion

The Court recognized same-sex stable unions as constitutionally protected family entities and mandated equal treatment with different-sex stable unions by applying a constitution-conforming interpretation to the civil-law framework, binding courts and public authorities to extend full corresponding rights and duties.


Prosecutor-General of the Republic v. National Congress (Braz. Sup. Fed. Trib. 2011)