From Normative Deficit to Constitutional Governance

Rereading the Writ of Injunction in Light of Anglo-Saxon Injunctions

Abstract

This article examines the writ of injunction within contemporary Brazilian constitutionalism, addressing the broader problem of structural normative insufficiency that affects the implementation of fundamental rights and challenges the State’s capacity to provide coherent institutional responses. The study’s relevance and originality lie in proposing a renewed interpretation of the writ of injunction as a key component of constitutional governance, especially in contexts of social complexity, technological acceleration, and persistent legislative inertia. The research question guiding the investigation concerns whether, and to what extent, the writ of injunction can effectively confront legislative omissions while preserving democratic legitimacy and maintaining institutional balance. The article aims to analyze the historical evolution of the remedy, its jurisprudential transformation, the concretist turn of the Supreme Federal Court, the impact of Law 13.300/2016, and its comparative dialogue with Anglo-American injunctions, in order to delineate the contemporary role of the instrument and its future implications. Methodologically, the study adopts an interdisciplinary approach that combines doctrinal analysis, jurisprudential reconstruction, critical constitutional theory, sociological perspectives on legal institutions, and comparative law. The findings indicate that the writ of injunction has become essential for the protection and materialization of constitutional rights, although it still faces challenges involving institutional coordination, legislative responsibility, and the risk of judicial overreach. The article concludes that the instrument is likely to expand into emerging technological and regulatory fields, thus opening avenues for empirical research and for the construction of collaborative models of constitutional implementation.