This paper proposes a critical analysis of the Supreme Court (STF) decision that upheld the ADPF 130, directed against the press act. In the first part, we seek to understand the content of that decision with the aid of a table comparing the reasons adopted by each judge. It appears that the incongruence between the whole press act and the constitution of 1988 was the only basis to reach the majority. The point at issue concerning the non-interference on free speech did not reach the majority and does not have the authority of the Supreme Court decisions. The second part examines the scope of the decision in ADPF 130, through the analysis of several complaints filed on the grounds of violation of the authority of Supreme Court ruling. Initially, it appears that the non-reception of the press act leads to the impossibility of its application, without having clear, yet, if the doctrine called "reflex or indirectly violation of the Constitution" continues to apply in respect of the press. Then, it is observed that, although there was no majority on the supposed duty of noninterference on free speech, STF keeps granting injunctions in some complaints, which reinforces the importance of understanding what was decided in ADPF 130.
press act; non-reception by the new Constitution; judicial review; Federal Supreme Court