Bruno Santos Cunha is a professor of constitutional and administrative law in Brazil and a PhD candidate in constitutional law at the Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil.
Renato Costa is a lecturer in law and a fellow of the Centre for Public, International, and Comparative Law at the University of Queensland, Australia.
This blog post examines religious expression in Brazilian public institutions, a topic that has been debated since at least 1892, following the 1891 Constitution’s formal disestablishment of an official state religion in Brazil. While this matter has been discussed across various public fora over the years, it is ultimately the judiciary that adjudicates controversies pertaining to the inclusion of pluriform religious expressions in public institutions.
The focus of our analysis is the latest decision by the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (STF), rendered in late November 2024, which marks a significant development in the ongoing relationship between religion and state within Brazil’s constitutional framework. By exploring both the historical context and the STF’s 2024 decision and other recent rulings on the theme, this post aims to illuminate how Brazil continues to navigate the complex relationship between religious expression and state neutrality in its public spaces.
History of Constitutional Regulation of Religion in Brazil
Historically, only one of Brazil’s eight constitutions established an official state religion. The first Constitution, enacted in 1824, designated Brazil as a Roman Catholic state while allowing the private practice of other religions. It was promulgated “under the Grace of God” and “in the name of the Holy Trinity,” reflecting the deep religious influences that shaped Brazilian colonization and independence, and the newly born Brazilian Empire. Article 5 of the 1824 Constitution established that “all religions are permitted to be practiced within private homes or designated places of worship, without any exterior form of a Temple.” Initially, the idea of church and state autonomy did not entail the absence of an official religion in Brazil. Instead, it incorporated principles of religious tolerance and prohibited the state from restricting private religious practices. This laid the groundwork for religious freedom while maintaining state endorsement of a particular religious belief. It was not until the Constitution of 1891, Brazil’s first republican and federal constitution, that the state was formally declared secular.
By breaking with the tradition of an official religion, the 1891 Constitution—grounded in republican ideals and federalism—explicitly prohibited both the states and the Federal Union from establishing, subsidizing, or obstructing the practice of religious worship (Article 11, Section 2). This principle established in 1891 persisted through subsequent constitutions up to the current 1988 Constitution, thereby affirming the codification of a fundamental right for all individuals and religious denominations to practice their worship publicly and freely.
The current 1988 Constitution solidifies protections for “fundamental rights and freedoms” to safeguard them from abolition. Freedom of religion, explicitly addressed in Article 5, Section VI, is enshrined as part of the Constitution’s eternity clause—known in Portuguese as a “stone clause” (cláusula pétrea). However, this designation does not provide religious freedom with absolute protection. The interpretation and application of the religious freedom clause are ultimately subject to the constitutional scrutiny of the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court. The extent to which the state may interfere in religious matters, including the display of religious symbols in public institutions, is thus continually examined by Brazilian courts.
Historical Challenges to Religious Symbols in Public Spaces
Even before the 1891 Constitution, movements advocated for the removal of religious symbols from public institutions. A notable example occurred in 1871 when Pastor Miguel Vieira Ferreira, of the Brazilian Evangelical Church, challenged the presence of a crucifix in a Rio de Janeiro courthouse. Called to serve on a jury, Ferreira formally requested the removal of the crucifix from the court’s wall. His request was denied, and he was subsequently fined. Undeterred, Ferreira continued his protests over four consecutive sessions, accruing additional fines each time. The presiding judge sought guidance from the Minister of Justice, Barão de Lucena, who ultimately upheld the decision to maintain the crucifix inside the courthouse. This early confrontation highlights the longstanding tensions surrounding the display of religious symbols in Brazil’s public institutions and the enduring debate over the separation of church and state.
Shortly after the 1891 Constitution did away with an official state religion, Pastor Ferreira intensified his efforts to remove sacred images from public spaces by challenging their presence in government buildings. In an 1892 article published in Jornal do Commercio, one of the most widely circulated newspapers of the time, Ferreira condemned the display of an image of Christ in the jury hall of Rio de Janeiro, then Brazil’s Federal Capital. He reported that two jurors had requested to be excused from the session on religious grounds, specifically asking for the removal of the image. The presiding judge denied their request and threatened to impose fines, while the prosecutor stated that refusal to participate could result in the loss of political rights.
Throughout Brazil’s history, such challenges to the presence of religious symbols in public institutions have arisen sporadically but persistently. In recent years, however, these disputes have increasingly been adjudicated by the STF. This escalation demonstrates the judiciary’s pivotal role in interpreting and enforcing the constitutional principles of religious freedom and state neutrality. As debates over religious symbols in public institutions continue, the Supreme Court remains the primary arena where conflicts between religious expression and secular governance are ultimately resolved, reflecting the dynamic interplay between tradition and constitutional law in Brazil.
Religious Symbol Cases in Judicial Debates and Recent STF Jurisprudence
The surge of formal judicial debates concerning religious expression in public institutions can be traced back to 2007, when the Brazilian Association of Atheists and Agnostics (ATEA) submitted multiple requests to the National Justice Council (CNJ)—an administrative body responsible for overseeing and improving the judiciary’s operations while ensuring its transparency and accountability—for the removal of crucifixes from courtrooms and judicial chambers across various states. ATEA’s requests were based on four main arguments: first, displaying religious symbols in public institutions breaches Article 19, Section I, of the 1988 Constitution, which upholds the principle of a secular state; second, in some tribunals, these symbols are prominently placed above the national flag, suggesting they hold greater significance than official state symbols; third, the presence of religious symbols implies that public officials may be influenced by religious principles rather than those governing public administration; and fourth, ATEA’s initiative is backed by a diverse and nonsectarian segment of society committed to promoting essential values of citizenship and democratic coexistence.
In its decision on ATEA’s petitions, the CNJ concluded that “the presence of a religious symbol, in this case, the crucifix, within any dependency of the Judiciary does not violate, offend, discriminate against, disturb, or infringe upon the rights or actions of others.” The CNJ further emphasized that they could not “ignore the cultural manifestation of religion in Brazilian traditions, which today does not represent any submission to clerical authority.”
The STF initially took a different approach. Between 2017 and 2021, the STF adjudicated three cases from different states—Rio de Janeiro, Amazonas, and Mato Grosso do Sul—that presented similar issues. In each case, state laws mandated the availability of copies of the Holy Bible in public schools and libraries. The STF unanimously ruled that such state actions constituted “inadmissible discrimination among citizens based on religion,” as “only citizens professing the Christian faith would have facilitated access, in public institutions and using public resources, to their sacred book, the Holy Bible. By doing so, the state legislatures engaged in an evident and illegitimate promotion of specific religious values.” Similarly, in a fourth, related case in 2018, the STF unanimously declared unconstitutional a law from the state of Rondônia that sought to “officialize the Holy Bible, in its various Portuguese translations, as a doctrinal source to underpin the principles, customs, and practices of communities, churches, and groups in the state of Rondônia.”
In early 2024, the STF adjudicated yet another case from the municipality of São Sebastião involving the building of a religious monument—a statue of São Sebastião, the city’s patron saint—funded with public resources. ATEA challenged the project, arguing it violated Article 19, Section I, of the 1988 Constitution. The lawsuit sought to annul the administrative process that approved the monument, prohibit its construction, and mandate the reimbursement of public funds. In contrast to its previous case law regarding religious symbols in public spaces, the STF ultimately ruled in favor of the municipality, determining that construction of the monument did not violate the constitutional principle of state secularity. The Supreme Court reasoned that the statue reflected the historical and cultural identity of São Sebastião and served as a symbol tied to the city’s heritage, name, and traditions. It also highlighted that the initiative aimed to foster tourism, an essential sector of the municipality’s economy, and did not constitute the promotion or endorsement of a specific religion.
By the end of the year, another case involving the display of crucifixes in public buildings was brought before the STF. The case concerned an attempt to remove all displays of religious symbols from government buildings and public institutions in the State of São Paulo. Writing the leading opinion in ARE 1249095, Justice Zanin rejected the plaintiff’s claim, stating that the presence of religious symbols in public spaces does not undermine the legitimacy of administrative actions or the impartiality of judicial decisions. Justice Zanin explained that since legal reasoning is not rooted in divine elements and does not impose philosophical doctrines on citizens, it is incapable of forcing believers to abandon their faith or of compromising believers’ autonomy to choose which religion (or non-religion) to follow. Justice Zanin further proposed that the STF adopt the following thesis, for application in future cases: “The presence of religious symbols in public buildings belonging to any branch of the Union, the States, the Federal District, or the Municipalities, provided it aims to reflect the cultural tradition of Brazilian society, does not violate the principles of non-discrimination, state secularism, and impartiality.”
The Justices, in their respective concurring opinions, unanimously agreed with the substance of Justice Zanin’s opinion. Justice Dino, for example, stated that Brazil is a secular state that recognizes and values the religious dimension of the human being, considering it an essential aspect of an individual’s life and a pillar for the common good. In this context, Justice Dino affirmed, a crucifix has a double meaning: it is an object of faith for the believer but a cultural symbol for those who participate in the political community. Justice De Moraes reinforced Justice Zanin’s opinion, affirming that the display of a crucifix is more a cultural symbol than a manifestation of religion. De Moraes noted that numerous dedicated days (many recognized as public holidays) and names of streets, squares, avenues, public schools, and even Brazilian states are intimately related to the Christian religion; these elements reflect a tradition that does not unconstitutionally impose or favor one religion but instead contributes to the richness of Brazil’s history.
Conclusion
The shift in the STF’s approach between its 2017–21 rulings and 2024 ruling goes beyond changes in the Court’s composition, as the 2024 unanimous decision makes clear. The common thread is the Court’s firm stance against state-imposed or state-favored religion, particularly when it privileges one faith over others. The Court differentiates between mandating Bibles in public buildings, or declaring an official state religion, and recognizing Brazil’s tradition of displaying crucifixes in courtrooms.
The Court appeared less persuaded by nondiscrimination arguments and more receptive to historical and cultural justifications, emphasizing that religious symbols, such as crucifixes, have acquired a broader meaning beyond their original sectarian significance. By framing them as part of Brazil’s legal and civic traditions, rather than as instruments of state endorsement of religion, the STF effectively shifted its interpretative focus from strict secularism to an accommodationist perspective that acknowledges the intertwined nature of law, culture, and history.
The STF’s most recent decisions have established that the presence of religious symbols in public buildings does not undermine the secular nature of the Brazilian state. Rightly so, the unanimous decision in ARE 1249095 demonstrates how entrenched the Christian religion is in Brazil’s history and culture. To deny certain manifestations of religious symbols, for example, is to erase a rich and diverse history of toleration and collaboration in Brazilian society. The Supreme Court has thus solidified an important jurisprudential principle: that a secular state must not exclude religious manifestations from public spaces.