ADI 7919 (General Law on Environmental Licensing and Law on Special Environmental Licensing)

In December, 2025, the Socialism and Liberty Party (PSOL) and the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB), accompanied by several expert entities, filed a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) with a request for a precautionary measure proposed with the objective of questioning the constitutionality of provisions of the new General Law on Environmental Licensing (Law 15.190/2025) and the law that provides for Special Environmental Licensing - LAE (Law 15.300/2025). The petitioners allege that Law 15.190/2025 weakens the legal system, affronting the normative environmental protection, achieved even through jurisprudence in the Supreme Federal Court, and brings about a panorama of environmental regression in a period marked by climate change. They claim that the content of the challenged norms deepens existing deficiencies in the licensing process, generating instability in the commitments assumed by the country in the socio-environmental and climate agendas. It is argued that some of the weakening objectives of the new laws are: (i) the control and oversight of activities that degrade the environment and climate; (ii) the exercise of the institutional powers of the National Environmental System (Sisnama) and public bodies that participate in environmental licensing in the protection of socio-environmental rights; (iii) the commitments made by the country in the socio-environmental and climate agendas; (iv) good business and financial practices; and (v) provisions related to the federal pact. The authors highlight several unconstitutional aspects present in the regulations. It is pointed out that the General Law promotes excessive delegation to states and municipalities through normative fragmentation and omission in terms of general rules. It is argued that the General Law establishes, in several points, open and excessive delegation for licensing to states, municipalities, and the Federal District, and does not mention CONAMA, which goes against the legal system of powers to legislate and to license. The General Law exempts potentially polluting or degrading activities and projects from environmental licensing, such as road paving, maintenance dredging, and agricultural activities. It also weakens the requirement for the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) for these activities, preventing federative entities from issuing regulations and rendering the principles of prevention, precaution, and the polluter-pays principle ineffective. This hinders environmental control, especially of agricultural activities, which are responsible for 28% of greenhouse gas emissions. It is argued that the General Law establishes too many hypotheses for granting the License by Adhesion and Commitment (LAC), with provisions applicable to subnational entities, including projects with medium polluting potential and the possibility of its use for corrective operating licenses. This establishes a self-licensing procedure without adequate environmental safety and control. The use of the LAC implies limitations on environmental conditions and a lack of assessment of the synergistic and cumulative effects of the projects. It is argued that the General Law improperly waives the requirement for certificates and permits such as the certificate of use and occupation of urban land, which deepens the risks to vulnerable areas under urban territorial planning, such as favelas, hillsides, and riverbanks, which may be affected by projects licensed without municipal approval, causing territorial conflicts, expulsion of communities, devaluation of properties, and favoring urban land grabbing, generating risks to public health and the environment and institutionalizing environmental racism. It is argued that the establishment of the Special Environmental License (LAE), which combines three phases of licensing into one for "strategic projects," constitutes a material unconstitutionality. Regarding energy projects, the General Law excessively simplifies the parameters for licensing and establishing conditions, which encourages environmentally and climatically critical practices, such as the opening of new frontiers for oil exploration and the deforestation of the Legal Amazon, preventing the country from meeting its targets under the Paris Agreement. It is argued that the General Law facilitates the regularization of irregularly installed enterprises through a Corrective Operating License (LOC) in the form of self-licensing. It also violates rights by restricting the participation of authorities involved in licensing and impact analysis of the interests they protect, such as public bodies responsible for (i) the protection of indigenous, quilombola, and traditional peoples and communities; (ii) the protection of historical and cultural heritage and public health; (iii) the protection of nature Conservation Units. The General Law reduces democratic participation in the licensing process by establishing a rule that hinders the holding of public hearings. It unduly reduces the socio-environmental responsibility of financial institutions, contradicting the objective and joint nature of civil liability in environmental matters. The lawsuit challenges the changes made by the General Law to the Law of the National System of Conservation Units - SNUC (Federal Law 9.985/2000), especially regarding the elimination of the requirement for authorization from the body responsible for the management of the Conservation Unit in the case of environmental licensing of projects that affect the protected area or its buffer zone, and the repeals in the Atlantic Forest Law (Federal Law 11.428/2006). The authors argue that an important factor ignored by the General Law in the face of climate change is the inclusion of the climate variable in licensing, with no mention even of the word "climate," which would represent a necessary step forward. It is argued that the lack of explicit mention of the mandatory climate analysis of activities and projects can lead to legal uncertainty and interpretations of the law that prevent the establishment of environmental conditions for mitigation and adaptation to climate change, which can affect the safety of the population and the very structure of the projects. Regarding this aspect, the authors mention the content of Advisory Opinion (OC) 32/2025 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) and the Advisory Opinion (OC) of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of 2025 on climate, which require protective measures by States to ensure climate protection and a balanced environment. The authors point out that several provisions of the General Law violate CONAMA Resolutions, the National Environmental Policy (Federal Law 6.938/1981), the National Policy on Climate Change (Federal Law 12.187/2009), and Complementary Law 140/2011. Finally, they point to the violation of constitutional provisions and principles: ecologically balanced environment, prevention and precaution, prohibition of socio-environmental regression, polluter-pays principle, user-pays principle, administrative efficiency, participation, intergenerational equity, and absolute priority of the rights of children and adolescents. Given the scenario described, the petitioners request the suspension of all the challenged provisions of Laws 15.190/2025 and 15.300/2025. As final requests, the petitioners seek a declaration of unconstitutionality of the articles of the laws specified in the initial petition and a determination of the interpretation in accordance with the Constitution of some of the articles of the General Licensing Law, such as articles 14, heading, items I to III, article 28, heading and §§1, 6 and 8; 29, items I to X and article 31, heading and sole paragraph, so that the issue of climate is considered.