Amid an internal split and the revelations of the Master case, the (Supreme Federal Court) remains at its worst evaluation level, shows research. The mark, similar to that of March, is only equivalent to those of December 2019, the beginning of the historical series, and December 2023.
In total, 40% of those interviewed evaluate the work of court ministers as bad or terrible. Another 34% classify it as regular, and 22% as bad or terrible. The indices remained stable in relation to March, considering the margin of error of two points. They were 39%, 34% and 23%, respectively.
Datafolha interviewed 2,004 people, aged 16 or over, using the personal approach method at flow points, on the 12th and 13th of May. The maximum margin of error for the total sample is two percentage points within the 95% confidence level. The research is registered under code BR-00290/2026.
The poor evaluation of the members of the Supreme Court comes amid the involvement of the names of ministers in the , criticism about salary caps in the Judiciary and the debate around a .
The Master case directly affected ministers and . The first after the Federal Police identified that funds linked to the bank purchased a stake in a luxury resort from a family company.
Moraes, on the other hand, suffered wear and tear after being published on the eve of the former banker’s arrest, in addition to that of his wife’s office with the bank.
In 2019, the court, in the wake of decisions contrary to the Lava Jato operation and another that generated controversy, such as the one that freed senator Flávio Bolsonaro (PL-RJ) from the investigation into the rachadinhas and the one that criminalized homophobia and transphobia.
In December 2023, rejection reached 38%, amid heightened tensions between Bolsonaro supporters and ministers.
But neither that year nor in 2019 did the court experience the unprecedented split seen now. The internal division in the court today has Moraes and ministers Flávio Dino, Gilmar Mendes and Cristiano Zanin on one side, and Edson Fachin and Cármen Lúcia on the other.
The quartet has been working together to demand that Fachin, the president of the court, provide a more emphatic defense of his colleagues, to try to implement high-profile agendas — such as the restrictions on penduricalhos — and to oppose the initiatives of the president of the Supreme Court to deal with the court’s image crisis, such as the implementation of a code of conduct.
PT and Bolsonaro supporters
Overall, the Supreme Court maintained a good relationship with Lula (PT) throughout most of the president’s current term. Not surprisingly, the court’s assessment is better among those who have a positive assessment of the PT member’s work. In this segment, 50% classify the performance of court ministers as excellent or good, and 12% as bad or terrible.
Among those who see the PT administration as bad or terrible, 5% say that the work of the judges is positive, and 71%, negative.
The data also show that, in the group of those who declare their vote for Lula, 40% evaluate the STF positively, while 16% classify the court’s work as negative.
In turn, among those who intend to vote for the senator (), 8% say that the Supreme Court’s performance is excellent or good, and 64% see it as bad or terrible.
One of the main themes of Bolsonarism in this year’s elections is the election of a large bench in the Senate to achieve the impeachment of ministers of the court, which sentenced Jair Bolsonaro (PL) to 27 years in prison for an attempted coup d’état.
Most of the Datafolha interviews were done before the repercussions involving Flávio and the one done by the senator to Vorcaro, according to him to finance a film about his father.
In sociodemographic terms, the STF’s negative assessment is greater among men than among women, replicating the gender division in support for Lula and Jair Bolsonaro’s son. In total, 45% of men rate the work of ministers as bad or terrible. 36% of them say the same.
Court failure is also worse among the most educated and wealthiest.
34% of those interviewed with primary education, 40% of those with secondary education and 48% of those with a higher education diploma say they evaluate the court’s work negatively.
In the monthly family income ranges, among those with up to two minimum wages, 33% evaluate the court’s performance negatively, while this percentage reaches 63% in the group of people with more than ten minimum wages.
