Racial Quotas: Vote to Strike Down Santa Catarina Law as Unconstitutional

This page is a translation of the original Portuguese text, provided for convenience. It deals with Brazilian law. If there is any discrepancy, the Portuguese version prevails. Read the original in Portuguese

The justice serving as rapporteur at Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court has voted to strike down a state law that prohibited quotas and affirmative action at public universities in Santa Catarina, calling it a step backward for social rights.

Santa Catarina law banned quotas at public educational institutions

Santa Catarina passed a law that expressly prohibited reserved-seat policies at higher education institutions that are public or funded with state public money. The law covered ethnic-racial and socioeconomic criteria, as well as criteria based on disability and on where applicants went to school. In practice, it eliminated any possibility of putting affirmative action in place within the state’s public education system.

The measure drew immediate national attention because it ran against the federal policy of inclusion through university quotas, which has been in force across the country for more than a decade. Human rights organizations, social movements, and political parties came out against the law, arguing that it was a significant setback for racial and social equality in access to higher education. The case reached the Supreme Court through a direct action of unconstitutionality.

The discussion of structural racism and legal protection in Brazil is central to understanding the context of this law. The state-level ban on quotas raised questions about the limits of the states’ legislative authority over fundamental rights and equality.

Rapporteur’s vote finds a violation of binding precedent

The rapporteur in the case voted to declare the Santa Catarina law unconstitutional in its entirety. The main basis for the vote was that the law directly contradicts a mandatory precedent of the Court itself, which had upheld the constitutionality of racial quota policies in Brazilian higher education. According to the rapporteur, the state legislated in the exact opposite direction of what the Court had already decided in a ruling with binding effect.

The vote stressed that the state law amounted to a social setback prohibited by the Federal Constitution. The principle against regression (the prohibition of social retrogression) bars the repeal of social gains already built into the legal system unless equivalent or better alternatives are put in their place. Here, the law simply eliminated affirmative action without offering any substitute mechanism for promoting substantive equality.

The state-level ban on quotas raised questions about the limits of the states’ legislative authority over fundamental rights and equality.

The rapporteur also held that the law violated the principle of substantive equality, which requires the State not only to treat citizens equally on paper but also to take concrete steps to reduce historically entrenched inequalities. Formal equality alone, which ignores the real disparities in access to higher education, would perpetuate existing exclusion. Understanding the legal categories of race and identity in Brazilian law helps put the importance of this decision in perspective.

Trial suspended and what the decision could mean

The trial was suspended after the rapporteur’s vote, and no date has been set for it to resume. Other justices still have to state their positions before the Court reaches a final decision on the validity of the Santa Catarina law. The outcome will directly affect the states’ autonomy to legislate against federal inclusion policies.

If the rapporteur’s position prevails, the law will be declared unconstitutional and lose its effect, which would restore the option of adopting quotas and affirmative action at Santa Catarina’s state educational institutions. The decision would also serve as an important precedent to stop other states from trying to pass similar laws, reinforcing the primacy of constitutional guidelines on substantive equality.

The debate over affirmative action in higher education remains current and relevant to building a fairer society. The quota policy, in place at the federal level in Brazil since 2012, has produced concrete results in widening access to public universities for historically excluded groups. Santa Catarina’s attempt to reverse that policy has reignited discussion of the historical roots of racial inequality in Brazil and the role of law in overcoming it.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a state ban racial quotas at state public universities?

Under the view that prevails at the Supreme Court, no. The Court has already upheld the constitutionality of racial quota policies in higher education in a ruling with binding effect. That means no level of government may legislate against that decision. A state law that bans quotas directly conflicts with this mandatory precedent and is likely to be declared unconstitutional.

What is the principle against social regression, and how does it apply to quotas?

This constitutional principle prevents social rights that have already been won from being eliminated or reduced unless the State offers an equivalent form of protection. For quotas, it means that once affirmative action has been put in place to promote equality in access to education, lawmakers cannot simply repeal it without offering effective compensatory mechanisms.

What is the difference between formal equality and substantive equality in university admissions?

Formal equality treats all applicants identically, regardless of their real circumstances. Substantive equality, by contrast, recognizes that historical and structural inequalities exist and must be addressed through concrete public policies. Racial quotas are a tool of substantive equality because they aim to correct disparities in access to higher education that affect historically marginalized groups.

As informações deste artigo são de caráter informativo e não substituem consulta jurídica individualizada. Cada caso possui particularidades que exigem análise específica.