The Brazilian Supreme Court: A Study in Judicial Overreach

The Supreme Federal Court (STF) of Brazil is the nation's highest judicial authority, entrusted with interpreting the Constitution and ensuring the rule of law. Unlike many judicial systems, the STF plays a significant role in political and social matters. Its members, appointed by the President of Brazil and confirmed by the Senate, hold lifetime positions, giving them substantial power over the country's trajectory. However, this structure has also been a source of controversy, particularly in the case of Justice Alexandre de Moraes, whose decisions have raised serious concerns about judicial overreach and political bias.

This article explores five key examples of Justice de Moraes' actions, highlighting how an unelected official can wield immense influence over Brazil's democracy.

This month, Justice de Moraes denied former President Jair Bolsonaro’s request to regain his passport to attend the U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration. De Moraes justified the decision by arguing that Bolsonaro failed to provide sufficient evidence of his invitation and remained a flight risk due to ongoing investigations, including allegations of plotting to remain in power after his electoral defeat.

Critics have decried this ruling as a politically motivated move aimed at discrediting Bolsonaro, a figure polarizing Brazilian politics. Denying a former head of state the ability to travel—especially for an event of international significance—demonstrates the extent of unchecked power held by de Moraes and his capacity to influence global perceptions of Brazil's political landscape.

In August 2024, de Moraes ordered the suspension of the social media platform X (formerly Twitter), citing its failure to adhere to Brazilian laws regarding misinformation. While some praised the decision as a necessary step to curb the spread of false information, it faced widespread criticism from free speech advocates and Bolsonaro supporters, who saw it as an authoritarian attempt to silence dissent.

Suspending an entire platform—especially one with a global reach—raises significant questions about the limits of judicial authority. This decision not only stifled public discourse but also set a dangerous precedent for government intervention in private enterprises, undermining Brazil’s democratic principles.

In March 2022, Justice de Moraes ordered the suspension of the messaging app Telegram, accusing it of noncompliance with court orders to block accounts spreading disinformation. Telegram’s founder, Pavel Durov, acknowledged lapses in compliance but vowed to make necessary adjustments. Meanwhile, then-President Bolsonaro labeled the ruling “inadmissible.”

By targeting a platform widely used by Bolsonaro’s base, de Moraes’ decision was perceived as a calculated move to suppress opposition voices. This unilateral action demonstrated his willingness to overstep judicial norms and infringe upon the communication rights of millions of Brazilians.

Following the January 2023 attack on the Brazilian Congress, de Moraes ordered the arrests of key individuals, including the former commander of the Military Police of the Federal District and the former Secretary of Public Security. While maintaining order is a legitimate function of the judiciary, critics argue that these arrests—made without clear evidence of direct involvement—were politically motivated.

Such actions underscore concerns about de Moraes’ alignment with the Lula government, as his decisions appear to target Bolsonaro’s allies disproportionately. By using his authority to direct law enforcement, de Moraes has blurred the line between judicial impartiality and executive influence.

As President of the Superior Electoral Court during the 2022 election, de Moraes implemented sweeping measures to combat disinformation. These included granting himself unilateral authority to order the removal of online content deemed to violate court rulings. While some viewed these actions as vital to ensuring a fair election, others saw them as overreach, with the potential to suppress legitimate political discourse.

De Moraes’ actions during the election further highlight his political entanglements. By positioning himself as a gatekeeper of information, he exercised disproportionate control over the electoral process, undermining public confidence in the judiciary’s neutrality.

Justice Alexandre de Moraes exemplifies the broader issue of unelected officials wielding immense authority in Brazil. Unlike political leaders who are held accountable by voters, STF justices face no direct consequences for their decisions. This lack of accountability allows individuals like de Moraes to make politically charged rulings without regard for public opinion or democratic norms.

Under President Lula’s administration, de Moraes has been accused of acting as a tool to consolidate power and marginalize opposition voices. From restricting freedom of speech to denying Bolsonaro the basic right to travel, his actions reveal a troubling pattern of judicial activism. While the judiciary is meant to serve as a check on executive overreach, in Brazil, it has increasingly become an unchecked force in its own right.

The cases outlined above illustrate the dangers of concentrated judicial power in a democracy. Justice Alexandre de Moraes’ decisions have not only shaped Brazil’s political landscape but also exposed the fragility of its democratic institutions. As Brazil moves forward, it is imperative to reevaluate the role and accountability of its Supreme Federal Court. Without meaningful reform, the judiciary risks becoming a tool of political expediency rather than a guardian of justice.