The strategy of the president of the (Federal Supreme Court), to advance a code of ethics for the court, divides even ministers in favor of creating rules of conduct.
In internal assessments, he indicated that he has the support of most of the ten ministers currently in court to approve the proposal, which has become a flagship of his administration.
Even among supporters, however, there are hesitations regarding the moment chosen for the debate. The concern of a group of ministers is that the discussion will weaken the court and encourage attacks in the midst of an image crisis and at a time when members are vulnerable due to questions about their conduct.
The idea of a code is well received by different groups in the STF, according to reports made by ministers and advisors. In addition to Fachin (announced as the project’s rapporteur), André Mendonça and Flávio Dino would make up the group receptive to the conception of a proposal.
This wing, therefore, includes ministers who have already disagreed at important moments in the court, such as the conviction of former president Jair Bolsonaro (PL) for a coup d’état — the case of Zanin and Fux.
Critics of the project had already expressed concern about the timing of the discussion, but Fachin will also have to deal with resistance from ministers who agree with the idea.
Some magistrates began to see the risk of the proposal being seen as a response to attacks and, thus, justifying the accusations.
This is one of the reasons why the president began to consider the possibility of leaving the concrete discussion until after the elections. With articulation, the minister gains time to try to consolidate support.
To move forward, Fachin will have to expand the internal debate. With the judicial recess, the ministers spent more than 40 days without a joint meeting. Furthermore, .
Upon returning from recess, Fachin informed his colleagues that he had chosen Cármen to prepare the text of the code and had individual dialogues with the ministers, but the conversations had not yet gone into depth.
The hesitation of supporters and opponents also involves the absence of a formal text. At least three ministers who have different views on the topic believe that they are facing an abstract discussion.
For a wing of ministers, more sympathetic to the idea, the code of ethics is an important response that the Supreme Court must give to society to face the image crisis worsened by developments in the investigation into .
The office of his wife, lawyer Viviane Barci, signed a contract worth R$3.6 million per month with the financial institution to represent her in court, according to the newspaper O Globo.
Furthermore, companies belonging to minister Dias Toffoli’s relatives were part of a company with an investment fund linked to Master in the Tayayá resort, in Paraná, as revealed by the Sheet.
In the first plenary session of 2026, on Wednesday (4), , rapporteur of the investigation into the Master, argued that judges can be partners in companies, as long as they are not directors.
Alexandre de Moraes also reacted publicly. He denied that members of the court judge cases with which they have a personal relationship and said that public opinion “started to demonize lectures.”
The minister also stated that the Constitution and Loman (Organic Law of the National Judiciary) “are enough to regulate the judiciary”, a statement that was understood internally as a criticism of the guidelines of the current president of the STF.
The reference to Loman has also been made by the dean, since the end of last year. The minister argues that the country already has adequate rules to guide the activity.
One of the texts cited by the court president’s interlocutors to justify the creation of the code is a study by the FHC Foundation, which highlights the need to strengthen the public reputation of magistrates.
The text has suggestions, including the code of conduct, indicating clauses that would oblige ministers to comply with rules of impartiality, integrity and honesty.
It also talks about specific rules on public demonstrations, participation in events and greater quarantine after a minister leaves the court.
Furthermore, the study proposes clearer rules on suspicion and impediment. These are the cases in which ministers withdraw from processes due to a conflict.
Loman is legislation prior to the 1988 Constitution and was sanctioned in 1979.
