Judicial review, scientific (un)certainty and legal reasons: analysis of the criteria for legitimizing Public Administration acts to face the covid-19 pandemic outlined in the Brazilian Supreme Court

This paper aims to reflect on the use of the invocation to “science” and the scientific arguments used by the Brazilian Supreme Court in defining criteria to assess the legitimacy and legality of decisions made by public administrators during the covid-19 pandemic, based on three Court decisions on federal decentralization of decisions on facing the pandemic, responsibility of public administrators and on vaccination, in which, oscillating between activism and self-containment, the Court adopts a single and homogeneous idea of ​​science, without observing the dissent and its implications for the decision-making process on facing a public emergency resulting from a global scale pandemic, creating a gray area between technical and legal-decision-making discretion within the scope of Public Administration, with implications for the responsibility of public agents and the effectiveness of administrative measures.