This article investigates the role of the Supreme Court as manager of criminal judicial public policies. The theoretical debate addresses the concept of judicial policy and its two meanings, as a decision or as an act of court management; and discusses the two types of judicial policy and the cases subject to debate in this work: judicial specialization policies (courts in domestic violence, money laundering and organized crime and the new guarantee judge) and instrumental policies (custody hearings and ANPPs), in order to classify and discriminate these five different cases regarding the Supreme Court’s actions. In the five cases of judicial policies, regardless of their origin, whether legislative or specifically judicial, the Supreme Court plays a role not only in legitimizing, but also in inducing implementation, which may imply redesign and (re)formulation, just as the decision is usually linked to monitoring and evaluation of institutes that, once considered effective, are established as integral parts of criminal policy.