An in-depth and careful analysis of the effects of the ruling issued by the Federal Supreme Court (STF)is necessary . The initial assessment is potentially positive, given the obscene amounts currently paid out by the justice system and the lobbying by professional associations in this case. The full court’s decision upholds the elimination of compensation awards established by administrative acts and state laws—as long as the National Congress fails to enact legislation regarding exceptions to the cap—and establishes a transition period until the legislature fulfills its role.

The decision also provides important clarifications by imposing clear limits on the capture of the public budget by certain professions. One such definition is that funds used to administer attorneys’ fees are public. Consequently, this is expected to put an end to the unconstitutional lack of transparency and oversight regarding the payment of attorneys’ fees—which will also be limited to the constitutional cap, as previously decided by the STF itself.

Another positive development is the end of the possibility of converting compensatory leave into cash, which in practice allowed for a one-third increase in the salaries of judges and prosecutors, resulting in the largest extra-ceiling perk. According to updated data from DadosJusBr, R$3 billion was paid out in compensatory leave in 2025 alone. Additionally, limiting the conversion of unused vacation time into compensation to a maximum of 30 days is also a positive development, since this practice is common in the justice system. However, the privilege of 60 days of vacation remains in place. 

The major problem, as Cármen Lúcia’s dissenting opinion made clear, is that, in practice, the ruling creates a new salary cap, legalizing payments up to 70% higher than the salary of a Supreme Court justice. This new cap is unique to the careers of judges and prosecutors, setting them apart from the rest of the civil service and reinforcing privileges and inequalities.

Another problem was the definition of payments exceeding the cap. It would be reasonable for only compensatory payments to be exempt from the current cap, and for these to cover only compensation for damages incurred during working hours, granted on a specific, individual, and occasional basis. However, items of a remunerative nature were included in the explicit list of payments exceeding the cap. Among these, the length-of-service allowance (ATS)—the five-year increment—stands out, as it can reach up to 35% of a Supreme Federal Court (STF) justice’s base salary. 

In addition to the ATS, the pro-labore payment for teaching, the allowance for hard-to-staff judicial districts, and the allowance for the cumulative exercise of jurisdiction or office are other remuneration items that career officials may receive in excess of the cap. The decision validated their payment as compensatory allowances. This sets a bad precedent for the case-by-case determination of compensatory allowances that the National Congress must make in the future.

Another possible consequence is that by excluding the above remuneration items from the salary cap calculation, it creates room to expand the payment of other amounts as compensation. This situation would reinforce the treatment of the salary cap as a minimum wage for these career tracks.

There are some points whose implementation warrants attention. In particular, the definition of what will or will not be included as a bonus for the accumulation of duties and official responsibilities stands out. In other words, what will be defined as an activity inherent to the position so as not to be considered a bonus. In the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office, for example, cases that were previously divided among all prosecutors have now been incorporated into new official duties, created precisely to allow for the payment of this benefit. This type of practice is likely to become even more widespread since this payment category is now exempt from the salary cap.

Another point of concern relates to the joint resolution by the CNJ and CNMP regarding the recognition of retroactive payments prior to February 2026, which must subsequently be approved by the STF. Given the historically corporatist stance of these councils regarding the creation of funds and benefits, there is a risk of leniency in the audit they will conduct and in the resolution that will be issued. 

Notably, the CNMP has been resistant to transparency regarding compensation, failing to require public prosecutors to publish pay stubs in a standardized and appropriate format, in addition to demanding the identification of citizens who view the pay stubs. It remains to be seen whether “absolute transparency in the disclosure of these amounts,” as well as the standardization of pay stubs, will occur as announced by Moraes.