There is a consensus among ministers of the (Supreme Federal Court) that criticism of the court’s performance has once and for all entered the agenda of right-wing pre-candidates in 2026, but the magistrates are divided on the best way to go through the electoral campaign and avoid worsening the wear and tear.
Five ministers believe that a more incisive confrontation is needed, with public positions that reflect intransigence with possible attacks and make the possible consequences clear. Another five understand that the best scenario is to act discreetly, escape the spotlight and submerge themselves.
The internal discussions come in the wake of two recent episodes: that of magistrates by the rapporteur of the CPI on Organized Crime, senator (MDB-SE), who will run for re-election, and that published by the former governor of Minas Gerais (Novo), a pre-candidate for the Presidency.
The group led by the minister defends vehement responses. On the day the CPI report was released, the dean spoke to the Second Panel and filed a representation with the (Attorney General’s Office) for .
Then, in a press conference this week, Gilmar also reinforced his position in relation to Zema. He asked the minister for the former governor to go. “There is an industry of defamation and slanderous accusations against the Supreme Court. I will confront it,” he wrote on social media.
Gilmar has the support of Moraes and the ministers, and. They assess that the STF is in the political world’s sights and that the attacks could attract electoral dividends for the candidates, especially among supporters of the former president (PL).
At the same time, the dean’s recent statements, which mocked Zema’s use of the Portuguese language and questioned whether it would be offensive to portray him as a homosexual ——, worry his allies, who fear a possible reverse effect.
The reading is that it is necessary to be firm, but moderate the tone and avoid slipping into irony, under penalty of strengthening the discourse of political persecution by the Supreme Court, giving ammunition to the court’s opponents and increasing the engagement of candidates considered, until now, irrelevant to the electoral race.
Toffoli — who, along with Moraes, is one of the central characters in , due to his links with the case — went so far as to say that the vote obtained from unfounded criticism of the STF is fraudulent and capable of giving rise to .
Gilmar’s group opposes that of the president of the court, who advocates a more self-contained STF, defends the implementation of one and is refractory to responding to or fueling any controversy brought by the pre-candidates.
Next to Fachin are the minister, rapporteur of the code of conduct, and the ministers, and. They signaled to people close to them that Gilmar’s reactions were too fiduciary and left the court even more exposed in the midst of the crisis.
These magistrates also assess that Gilmar and Dino, because they disagree with Fachin’s management, are seeking a leading role in the conduct of institutional matters, such as the pact made for and the proposal for a , which goes beyond the rules for events.
Gilmar, Dino, Moraes and Zanin, with lateral support from Toffoli, formed a kind of alliance to oppose Fachin amid the negative repercussions of the Master’s investigation. They understand that the president of the STF wants to leave a legacy in defense of ethics, but at the cost of wearing down his colleagues in the public square.
The ministers claim that Fachin’s insistence on the code of conduct, statements that “” and the delay in providing institutional responses (the repudiation of the CPI on Organized Crime report was only released after the document was rejected by Congress) end up increasing the court’s vulnerability.
The president of the court has told assistants that he maintains periodic dialogue with his colleagues and that disagreements are normal in a collegiate body, without necessarily meaning an internal rupture. He also states that defending the moral integrity of the court and the impartiality of the ministers is a non-negotiable flag of his management.
The direction of the fake news inquiry, which targets Bolsonarists and was opened in 2019, is another point of divergence between the two wings of the STF. While Fachin publicly defended the short term, Gilmar assesses that Zema’s case is an example that attacks on the court will dominate the electoral campaign and that it would be reckless not to have an instrument to contain them.
The differences between the two groups should also be highlighted in the (Superior Electoral Court) under , which takes office in May. If in the 2022 elections Moraes, in charge of the court, defended greater intervention by the Electoral Court, the new president must adopt one in 2026.
According to reports made to Sheet by Kassio’s interlocutors, many contents that his colleagues classify as attacks on the Supreme Court are, for him, a mere exercise of freedom of expression. The minister understands that the public debate during the election, even if it affects the Judiciary, must flow without interference from the TSE, except in extremely serious cases.
