Minister André Mendonça’s role in the Banco Master and INSS fraud cases increased his protagonism in the Federal Supreme Court (STF), but the CPI that investigated undue discounts on retirement and pensions exposed the limits of this rise, especially on issues that require a broader majority and involve the relationship with Congress.
Behind the scenes at the STF, the result was interpreted as a message from the majority of the Court. Ministers interviewed by GLOBO consider, however, that this does not change the favorable scenario surrounding the rapporteur of the main ongoing investigations.
Interlocutors assess that this is the first significant setback in a sequence of decisions in which Mendonça was asserting himself as a protagonist, and that the result should lead him to intensify internal coordination to form majorities, especially in cases that strain the division of competences between the Powers.
In addition to the Master case, which exposed the court to an image crisis and paved the way for developments such as the negotiation for the plea bargain of banker Daniel Vorcaro, Mendonça also focuses on reporting on fronts with a high potential for political strain, such as investigations into INSS fraud. This accumulation of cases, in the opinion of interlocutors, contributed to placing him in a strategic position within the Court, with the ability to guide debates and impose specific timing on investigations.
Cabinet reinforcement
Mendonça’s office also underwent reinforcement, with the incorporation of Federal Police delegates to the team that assists the minister. These two assistants were entirely provided by the PF and act as advisors. According to reports made to GLOBO, professionals help with the analysis of evidence, organizing information and liaising with investigative bodies.
Furthermore, the office currently has an assistant judge specially assigned to deal with the Master case and recently received authorization to relocate the team internally. With the approval of the President of the Court, Edson Fachin, Mendonça now has another assistant judge and gains employees who previously worked with Luís Roberto Barroso, who retired in October 2025.
Continues after advertising
The move occurs at a time of increased load on sensitive processes in the cabinet. Court assistants assess that the technical reinforcement seeks to increase the flow of measures taken in these investigations and ensure greater control over the flow of information in these processes that are considered to be highly politically exposed.
Privately, ministers note that Mendonça has adopted a more assertive stance since taking on the Master case, in contrast to the more discreet performance that marked part of his initial career in court. The reading is that he began to test the limits of his position, both in conducting investigative measures and in dialogue with other Powers, in particular by reinforcing the autonomy of the Federal Police and by tensioning the positions of the Attorney General’s Office (PGR) at key moments in the process.
This stance is confirmed by the minister’s interlocutors, who say that he has signaled that he is “very calm”, convinced of the decisions regarding the Master scandal. There is an assessment that the exposure of the case, for now, has also favored the minister in the court’s power play, as criticism from colleagues ends up subject to the scrutiny of public opinion. When contacted, Mendonça did not respond.
The movements are also reflected in the attempt, still ongoing, to build a majority. Today, one of Mendonça’s main points of support is Fachin, who has a direct interest in stabilizing the Court’s internal environment after the crisis opened by the case. Minister Luiz Fux is also mentioned as a frequent interlocutor, forming a nucleus that, although not formalized, has acted with some convergence on issues related to the conduct of the court.
On the other side, the main focus of tension involves Dean Gilmar Mendes, who has made direct criticisms of the way his colleague has been handling the case. When voting to maintain Vorcaro’s arrest, during the virtual plenary trial, Gilmar took the opportunity to send clear messages about the limits of judicial action in investigations of this nature.
In the vote, the minister made “reservations regarding the use of elastic concepts and moral judgments such as ‘social trust in Justice’, ‘social pacification’ and ‘quick response from the Justice system’, as argumentative shortcuts to justify preventive detention”. According to him, this type of justification should not guide judicial decisions, and precautionary detention must be based on concrete elements linked to the investigation of the case, and not on responses to external pressure.
Continues after advertising
The demonstration was read internally as an attempt to curb Mendonça’s actions and, at the same time, as an indication that the dispute surrounding the handling of the case is far from over. Members of the Court assess that the clash reveals more than a specific legal divergence: it is a dispute over the role of the Supreme Court in highly politically charged investigations.
In the session that marked the overturn of the Mendonça injunction that authorized the extension of the INSS CPI, a direct clash with Gilmar became evident, which ended up reinforcing the rapporteur’s isolation in the case. The harshest tone came from the dean, who raised the level of criticism of the CPIs’ actions in handling confidential data, classifying the disclosure of protected information as “abominable” and a “collective crime”.
The speech was interpreted by interlocutors as a direct message to conduct the case under the report of Mendonça, who, in turn, also recognized the risks of leaks and stated that he had already adopted measures to contain the improper disclosure of data, such as returning material to the Federal Police.
Continues after advertising
The trial also highlighted the convergence between Mendonça and Fux, who was the only one to support the rapporteur in maintaining the extension of the CPI. The alignment of positions, already observed in other recent moments, reinforces an axis of convergence between the two ministers on institutional issues, especially in defense of a broader reading of the prerogatives of parliamentary minorities — even though this alignment proved insufficient to support the rapporteur’s position in the trial.
There are interlocutors who consider that Minister Cármen Lúcia could end up serving as a possible ally for Mendonça due to the fact that the judge shares the assessment that a detailed investigation into the Master case is best for the Court’s image.
