Revista da EMERJ - V. 22 - N.1 - Janeiro/Março - 2020

179  R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 22, n. 1, p. 178 - 219, Janeiro-Março. 2020  e, com base em uma justificação de segunda ordem, o trabalho objetiva propor uma de segunda ordem aos ministros do STJ: sem- pre aplicar 4 (quatro) das 5 (cinco) etapas da análise de impacto regulatório quando do julgamento de pedidos de suspensão de segurança no âmbito do direito regulatório. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Regulação. Consequencialismo. Neil Maccormick. Luis Fernando Schuartz. Decisões de segunda ordem. ABSTRACT The relationship between the interpretation of legal norms and the realization and concretization, based on consequences, of constitutionally assured purposes seems increasingly frequent in the jurisprudence of the Brazilian courts. In this sense, jud- ges, appeal court judges and ministers appear to introduce a lo- gic and juridical rationality based on consequentialist arguments when rendering judicial decisions. The main point is that when the judicial authority bases a certain decision, by analyzing the consequences produced by it and possible alternatives, the deci- sion maker should elaborate a reasoning based on scientific, extra- -legal criteria of adequacy. The problem is that jurists do not have the epistemological ability to correctly handle those criteria. This paper analyzes the jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) in the rendering of decisions in the context of requests for suspension of security related to the regulatory law. The scope of this work is to locate problems related to the positive dimension of consequentialist reasoning and, therefore, based on a second order justification, the work aims to propose the following second order strategy to the STJ ministers: always apply 4 (four) of the 5 (five) steps of the analysis of regulatory impact when judging requests for suspension of security under the regulatory law. KEY WORDS: Regulation. Consequentialism. Neil Maccormick. Luis Fer- nando Schuartz. Second order decisions.