STF Divided Over Investigation Into Justice Alexandre de Moraes

The Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF) is facing an internal conflict as justices prepare for a session on Tuesday, October 15, to decide whether to open an investigation into Justice Alexandre de Moraes regarding his ties to former banker Daniel Vorcaro. A group of justices aligned with Justice André Mendonça is coordinating a strategy to ensure votes are cast even if a request for review, known as a pedido de vista, is made to suspend the proceedings. This group believes there is currently a majority in the plenary to authorize the investigation and seeks to make this position visible to prevent the case from being frozen until after the elections.

Justice Edson Fachin, who assumed the role of rapporteur following a weekend agreement with Mendonça, is expected to vote first. While center-right reporting indicates that Justice Luiz Fux may also join Mendonça and Fachin in anticipating their votes, other reports highlight a counter-strategy. A group including Justices Gilmar Mendes, Cristiano Zanin, and Flávio Dino has sought to influence the process. This includes requests for the joint trial of investigations involving both Moraes and Mendonça, as well as demands for access to the contents of Daniel Vorcaro's cell phone.

Legal experts describe the current atmosphere as the darkest moment for the Court since the 1988 Constitution. Marcelo Crespo, a law professor, characterized the situation as an unprecedented level of polarization and ideological division within the Court. He noted that while there is no hierarchy among justices during judgments, a functional administrative hierarchy exists under the president of the court to ensure the proceedings move forward.

Framing of the conflict varies by political perspective. Center-left reporting focuses on the strategic maneuvering to expose the majority opinion within the plenary. Center-right reporting frames the actions of Justices Moraes, Dino, Mendes, and Zanin as a coordinated effort to protect their own survival and discredit Justice Mendonça through timed legal actions. Center reporting emphasizes the broader institutional crisis and the loss of credibility facing the Court.