Liberdade religiosa e supremacia do interesse público: uma análise da jurisprudência do Tribunal de Justiça de Minas Gerais sobre os Adventistas do Sétimo Dia

Abstract

This article aims to analyze how the Court of Justice of Minas Gerais (TJMG) has interpreted and applied the principle of the supremacy of the public interest in relation to the fundamental right to religious freedom of Seventh-day Adventists. For this religious group, Sabbath observance—from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday—is a central doctrine, which frequently leads to conflicts with work obligations, academic requirements, and stages of public service examinations. The justification for this research lies in the relevance and importance of the topic in the current Brazilian legal and social context, characterized by a pluralistic and multicultural society that requires the peaceful coexistence between different religious beliefs, such as that of Seventh-day Adventists, and the public interest. The study seeks to understand whether and how the TJMG has recognized and protected the religious freedom of adherents to this faith in cases involving public interest. As a critical framework, it adopts the contemporary concept of public interest proposed by Gustavo Binenbojm, who argues that the centrality of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution prevents a rigid and predefined application of the public interest’s supremacy over private interests, as defended by classical administrative theories. This qualitative, critical-reflective research draws on the analysis of TJMG decisions, based on specific search terms related to the topic, both before and after the judgments of Themes 386 and 1021 by the Federal Supreme Court (STF). The study concludes that, despite earlier decisions using the principle of public interest supremacy to systematically deny judicial requests for alternative arrangements grounded in religious freedom by Seventh-day Adventists, the TJMG has, following those STF rulings, shifted toward recognizing such accommodations, no longer invoking the supremacy of the public interest in its collegiate decisions on the matter.