Tension in the Supreme Court plenary
In Tuesday's session, the STF decided, by 4 votes to 3, to individually analyze the cases involving Minister Alexandre de Moraes and his colleague André Mendonça. The score reflects internal divisions after a Federal Police report indicated that Moraes would have acted as an interlocutor for banker Daniel Vorcaro.
Heavy criticism from columnists
Edson Fachin was called the “impeachment monster” by some GLOBO commentators, who accuse him of expanding the scope of the investigation. Other texts highlight that the minister would be “under attack” and that the court itself “bleeds” in the face of public exposure.
- PF Report: points to links between Moraes and the banker
- Winning votes: defended separate processing of the cases
- Minority position: wanted joint judgment
Institutional impact
The analyzed texts converge in stating that the episode exposes cracks in the Supreme Court and may fuel narratives of political persecution. Still, the decision maintains the current rite and postpones any outcome on possible investigation.
Score summary
- 4 votes: individual analysis
- 3 votes: joint analysis
The debate remains open and should return to the plenary on a date yet to be defined.