RULE OF LAW
The historic (and multiple) takes on the Supreme Court’s final say
“‘The people are supreme,’ reads a sign held during a far-right protest against Brazil’s Supreme Court. Photo: Nancy Ayumi Kunihiro/Shutterstock."
“The future of democracy depends, to a large extent, on preserving the autonomy of constitutional courts, which must be able to operate free from external pressures.” With that argument, Supreme Court Justice Gilmar Mendes issued a controversial injunction that significantly curtailed the possibility of Supreme Court justices facing impeachment proceedings.
The injunction addresses a genuine anti-democratic threat: far-right senators have been attempting to intimidate justices by filing impeachment requests whenever they disagree with a ruling. The tactic has even become a central talking point ahead of the 2026 elections, as retaliation for the Supreme Court having convicted far-right former President Jair Bolsonaro for attempting a coup. Some therefore argue that Justice Mendes neutralized a potential congressional power grab.
Even so, a significant portion of Brazil’s legal community believes Mendes overstepped his bounds. Scholars argue that instead of correcting flaws in an outdated law, the decision effectively…
🔒 This was a free preview; the rest is behind our paywall
Don’t miss out! Upgrade to unlock full access. The process takes only seconds with Apple Pay or Stripe. Become a member.
Why you should subscribe
We’re here for readers who want to truly understand Brazil and Latin America — a region too often ignored or misrepresented by the international media.
Since 2017, our reporting has been powered by paid subscribers. They’re the reason we can keep a full-time team of journalists across Brazil and Argentina, delivering sharp, independent coverage every day.
If you value our work, subscribing is the best way to keep it going — and growing.
Interested in advertising with us? Get in touch.
Need a special report? We can do it.
Have an idea for an article or column? Pitch us
