Brazilian Courts Are Using AI to Clear a Backlog of 80 Million Pending Cases. Human Rights Groups Are Watching

Inside the glass-walled annex of Brazil’s Supreme Court in Brasília, there’s a certain silence that you wouldn’t expect from a structure that houses 80 million unresolved cases. Attorneys arrive with folders tucked under their arms; some are pacing the polished hallway slowly, while others are checking their phones.

Outside, the modernist facade is strongly reflected by the August light. Inside, the court is subtly allowing algorithms to assist in determining the course of justice, something that would have seemed unimaginable ten years ago.

Key Information	Details
Country	Brazil
Judicial Body Overseeing AI	National Council of Justice (CNJ)
Pending Lawsuits (approx.)	79 million
New Cases Filed (First Half 2025)	Over 15 million
Annual Cost to Government	$30 billion (1.6% of GDP)
AI Projects Active in Courts	Over 140 systems across 62 courts
First AI Directive Issued	2020
Governing Resolution	Resolution No. 615/2025
Notable AI Tools	Victor (Supreme Court), Athos, Logos
Top Court	Supremo Tribunal Federal, Brasília
Cases Heard by Supreme Court Yearly	Around 80,000

One of the world’s most litigious societies is found in Brazil. For every 2.5 citizens, there is about one pending lawsuit. Although it’s not a statistic that’s frequently stated aloud, it underlies everything. Paperwork overwhelms courts.

Judges push through dockets that resemble freight schedules rather than legal calendars. Thus, beginning in 2019, the nation started to embrace artificial intelligence with a zeal typically associated with Silicon Valley rather than a judicial bureaucracy.

In their own dry way, the numbers are astounding. There are more than 140 AI systems operating in 62 courts, some of which are creating documents, some of which are locating precedents, and some of which are forecasting judges’ decisions. Extraordinary appeals are screened by the Supreme Court’s flagship tool, Victor. Constructed for the Superior Court of Justice, Athos and Logos verify the admissibility of appeals; this type of laborious screening used to take weeks of a clerk’s time. Perhaps this is just what a system that is overloaded needs. It’s also possible that nobody really understands what they’ve created.

The National Council of Justice councillor Rodrigo Badaró made it clear to the rest of the world. He claimed that rather than decreasing litigation, the use of AI might be increasing it. To draft and file more quickly, attorneys are utilizing generative tools. AI is being used by judges to clear the ensuing flood. He referred to it as a “vicious circle,” and the term sticks because it conveys an uneasy feeling. In this tale, efficiency does not always equate to resolution.

Then there are the little moments that show the fissures. A petition citing nonexistent precedents appeared in one Supreme Federal Court case, Claim No. 78,890. An AI tool had created them and submitted them as authentic. The Brazilian Bar Association was consulted after the court fined the attorney double the court costs. Even though it’s a minor incident in a large system, it conveys a lot. The building already has the machines.

Human rights organizations have been observing, first silently and now more loudly. Just 9% of judicial operators worldwide reported having clear institutional guidelines for the use of AI, according to a UNESCO survey. In March of last year, Brazil passed Resolution No. 615/2025, establishing a national committee to supervise the system of risk classification. The framework appears well-considered on paper. In reality, civil society has found it difficult to monitor what is being used and where. Brazilian courts are innovative due to their decentralization, but they are also challenging to oversee.

As this develops, it seems as though the nation is conducting a massive experiment without a true control group. Clearly, some tools are helpful. Processing of cases proceeds more quickly. When it comes to AI, clerks like Arianne Vasconcelos, who summarizes constitutional cases for the chief justice, seem almost relieved. However, efficiency is not equity, and speed is not justice.

The ambiguity that occasionally shields the weak may be eliminated by tech developers by flattening the law into something a computer can understand.

Brazil’s wager is audacious, disorganized, and incomplete. In five years, who is still paying attention will likely determine whether it becomes a cautionary tale or a model for the world.