The new Coronavirus pandemic took everyone by surprise. People and public institutions were forced to readapt their routines and expectations. The Judiciary, faithful to its mission to pacify conflicts, as mandated by the Constitution, was no exception, as there has been an actual productivity increase by courts in the country during this period. In the turmoil of the crisis, the Federal Supreme Court fulfilled its constitutional duties and worked, once again, as a focal point in terms of judicial and democratic security. Invested in this role, the Court was able to produce decisions of the utmost importance to the institutions of the country. Some of those decisions are described in the following pages, dedicated to guaranteeing disclosure of the Court’s activities during this unique period. It is imperative to realize that, in order to produce satisfying decisions – both in terms of quantity and quality –, the Court promoted administrative efforts with impressive speed. One of the first measures was the establishment of a procedural preference mark for cases related to Covid-19. A classifying mechanism that alerts the Justices’ offices of such cases, which improved the working system as the issues were granted priority to proceed. In consequence of this subtle change, the “Panel of Covid-19 Cases” was created, an interactive board available on the Court’s website, which shows the exact number of cases submitted to trial and their respective decisions and is refreshed automatically every five minutes. The system supports search by designated Justice and procedural class, among the many that exist in the vast competence of the Court. In practical terms, by the end of September 2020 (six months after the beginning of the pandemic in Brazil), there were more than 6,000 cataloged decisions. Concerning concentrated constitutional control cases alone, there were 138 regarding Covid-19 related themes. Also, there were 4,030 habeas corpora regarding people’s right to freedom, and 717 constitutional complaints, a type of demand designed to overrule an administrative or judicial legal act that does not heed to a Supreme Court precedent. The decision mechanisms were also significantly remodeled so that social distancing set by the “new normal” would not represent an impediment to the Court’s judicial activities. Therefore, there are two trial environments available now: the virtual and the physical one. Regarding the virtual environment, the case classes increased. In the past, very few classes were decided remotely. Now, due to an internal rule change, any class may be subject to a virtual trial. In such trials, after the designated Justice submits a vote, the others are given a predetermined time to agree, disagree, or request an extended period to examine the matter more deeply. In addition, the virtual sitting, created in 2007, underwent many improvements in order to guarantee the right to adversary proceeding: submission of oral arguments electronically, the possibility to offer factual clarifications by both parties during the trial and the publication, via the internet, of the Justices’ complete opinions, which increases the disclosure and transparency of the trials. Furthermore, the “Virtual Trial Panel” was created, containing the most relevant statistical info and graphs to society, which is fed automatically by the Court’s database. Regarding the physical environment, trials were adapted to work via videoconference. Therefore, decisions that would have happened inside the Court, if conditions were normal, were able to take place similarly with the participation of all Justices, Prosecution Office, and Counsels so that the Court’s activities were uncompromised, given their insurmountable importance to society. Fully prepared to exercise its constitutional duties, the Court was able to give exemplary decisions, fully detailed in terms of the analysis of delicate matters concerning the pandemic. As such, this publication contains decisions regarding, for example, the competence of federate units (Union, states, Federal District, and municipalities) to take action in order to contain the spread of the virus; the determination of scientifically and technical procedures as parameters to decide whether a public agent is responsible for a certain outcome during these uncertain times; the constitutionality of reducing work hours and salaries throughout the crisis; and the overrule of certain initiatives enforced by public authorities that eventually collided with fundamental rights. As a result, the outcome was undoubtedly positive: in this atypical and otherwise unthinkable landscape, the Federal Supreme Court rose to the challenge, increasing its productivity significantly. This was also achieved through the home-office regime of the Court’s staff, which has been in force for the past four years. Consequently, social distancing measures were taken with haste and transparency, as well as the possibility for any person to electronically access the activities developed by the Court. There are times in which difficulties arise and seem overwhelming. The Judiciary must always be prudent, responsible, and have a sense of innovation in order to fulfill its constitutional and social roles. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court overcame itself. The Case Law Compilation on Covid-19 represents a landmark in terms of implementing the “2030 Agenda.” Administrative measures were adopted so that the Court could grant priority to cases aligned with the “Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) of the “2030 Agenda.” In this compendium, the proceedings related to the SDGs received a visual highlight, which means that this classification is indexed in the judicial database. I am certain that this publication is a relevant contribution to the constructive dialogue regarding the experience of constitutional jurisdiction in many nations.