The (Federal Supreme Court) and the Judiciary are going through a period of heightened confidence among Brazilians. According to research, distrust in these institutions has reached record levels.
In recent months, there has been a combination of controversial court decisions, ethical questions in the STF and the maintenance of .
According to the survey, the rate of Brazilians who do not trust the Supreme Court reached 43%, the highest rate recorded since the beginning of the series, in 2012. This number was 38% in the previous survey, in December 2024 — since then, those who trust the court a lot have fallen from 24% to 16%.
The lowest numerical rate of Brazilians who trust the STF a lot was recorded in June 2018 (14%), a tie with the current situation, considering the margin of error. At that time, however, 39% said they did not trust the court, with 43% saying they somewhat trusted the court.
The scenario is no different for the Judiciary as a whole. The portion of the population that declares they do not trust the Justice system jumped from 28% to 36%, also the highest rate in the series (which, in this case, has been since 2017).
In relation to the STF, the growth in distrust is accompanied by a worsening in the evaluation of the ministers’ work: only 23% of the population evaluate the court’s performance as excellent or good, a significant drop compared to the 32% recorded in December. On the other hand, the bad or terrible evaluation rose from 35% to 39%.
Datafolha interviewed 2,004 people aged 16 or over in 137 municipalities across Brazil, from March 3 to 5. The margin of error is two percentage points, plus or minus, within the 95% confidence level. The research is registered with the TSE under number BR-03715/2026.
Dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court is particularly high among men (46%), people with high education (45%) and Brazilians with an income above 10 minimum wages, a group in which disapproval of the court reaches 65%.
In the analysis by voting intention for the presidential election, however, important differences are observed in the STF’s evaluation rates between voters of , PT (44% are satisfied and 12% dissatisfied), and Flávio Bolsonaro, of PL (7% are satisfied and 67% dissatisfied). It was the STF who sentenced the former president (PL) to prison last year for an attempted coup d’état.
Among the main causes for the wear and tear of the STF in 2026 may be, which involves suspicious relationships between Supreme Court ministers and the banker, the bank’s former controller.
The episode directly affected ministers and . The first, who was the rapporteur of an investigation into Master and had imposed total secrecy on the case, after the Federal Police identified that funds linked to the bank purchased a stake in a company owned by his family in a luxury resort.
Moraes found himself involved after PF investigations revealed. Although this became public after the Datafolha research was carried out, it was known before that that the Master provided legal services, which raised questions about the impartiality of the judge.
The public perception of a lack of ethical limits is corroborated by Datafolha data on the conduct of STF ministers.
The survey shows that the majority of the population supports severe restrictions on the actions of magistrates: 79% disagree with a minister judging cases involving clients of their relatives; 78% are against ministers being partners in companies; and 76% reject receiving payments for lectures organized by private institutions, for example.
But creating one faces severe internal resistance. Currently, the court is divided between a group that sees the code as a kind of salvation for the institutional image and another that considers the rules to be an excessive restriction.
In the case of the Judiciary, a point of strong wear and tear could be —aids and bonuses that allow judges and members of the Public Ministry to circumvent the constitutional ceiling of R$46,366.19. Many judges achieve net remuneration of more than R$100,000 per month.
To combat fraud, the (National Council of Justice) has intensified monitoring of payrolls to block benefits created without legal basis by state courts.
In the STF, the debate focuses on defining that all salary funds must comply with the constitutional ceiling, avoiding maneuvers that inflate income. So far, however, the agenda has made little progress.
