The possibility of removing a Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) justice from office has intensified debate following renewed denunciations in the Banco Master case, which allege undue pressure from Minister Alexandre de Moraes on the President of the Central Bank. Despite a surge in new impeachment requests anticipated for 2025, experts consistently highlight the historical improbability of such an event occurring in Brazil’s democratic periods.
Constitutional lawyer Gustavo Sampaio, a professor at the Universidade Federal Fluminense, underscored this rarity in a recent interview, noting that over more than a century of republican history, the legislative branch has only once successfully removed a high court magistrate.
Sampaio further clarified the exceptional nature of high court judicial tenure, asserting that during periods of democratic rule, justices of Brazil’s highest judicial instance have remained largely “intangible” and “untouched.”
Historical precedent and judicial immunity in Brazil
The constitutionalist elaborated that the only instances of STF ministers being deposed occurred under highly irregular circumstances, specifically during periods of political exception. These actions were not a result of established democratic processes but rather expressions of authoritarian power.
Sampaio recalled a particular incident where three ministers of the Supreme Tribunal Federal were effectively removed from their positions shortly after the Fifth Institutional Act (AI-5), which marked a severe escalation of the military regime’s repressive measures. Ministers Hermes Lima, Vitor Nunes Leal, and Evandro Lins e Silva were “cassados” (had their political rights revoked and positions annulled) because their judicial stances were deemed to be in opposition to the prevailing military government.
Global comparisons reveal varied approaches to high court removals
Establishing a broader context, Sampaio drew parallels with international experiences, noting that judicial removals from supreme courts are not unheard of in other nations, though they remain rare in stable democracies. He mentioned that Chile, for example, has seen the removal of three Supreme Court ministers within the last year and a half, indicating a different procedural and political dynamic.
Argentina also recorded a similar case during the administration of former President Cristina Kirchner, illustrating that even in Latin American democracies, such actions, while uncommon, do occur.
However, Sampaio emphasized that “in more stabilized democracies, this does not occur,” highlighting a fundamental difference in institutional resilience.
As a prime example, he cited the United States, where over two centuries of Supreme Court history, only one justice, Samuel Chase in 1804, has ever faced removal proceedings, underscoring the exceptional nature of such events in well-established legal systems.
Risk of political instrumentalization and institutional stability
The specialist issued a significant warning regarding the potential for political abuse inherent in processes aimed at removing high court judges. He stressed that these mechanisms must not devolve into tools manipulated by political factions to eliminate a judge whose decisions or positions might be inconvenient to a powerful segment of the national political sphere.
Sampaio passionately advocated for the unwavering stability of democratic institutions, asserting that their integrity is paramount to the rule of law and the consistent functioning of a fair judicial system. He argued that allowing judicial removals to become a political weapon could severely undermine public trust and the independence necessary for effective governance.
Calls for a supreme court code of conduct gain traction
Addressing another pertinent issue, the adoption of a Code of Conduct for the STF, which has sparked considerable debate, Sampaio expressed strong support for the initiative. He believes that such a code is not only necessary but crucial for enhancing the court’s public perception and internal governance.
“The Code of Conduct for the Supreme Federal Court needs to come into being,” Sampaio declared, pointing out a significant gap in current oversight. He noted that while the National Council of Justice (CNJ) possesses supervisory powers over more than 18,000 magistrates across Brazil, the ministers of the STF are notably exempt from this essential supervision, creating a unique situation within the judiciary.
International models for judicial ethics
The constitutionalist referenced international precedents to bolster his argument, citing countries like the United States and Germany, which have long-established codes of conduct specifically tailored for their respective supreme courts. These examples demonstrate that such ethical frameworks are not only viable but are considered best practices in leading democratic nations.
Sampaio concluded that the implementation of clear and comprehensive rules for the STF would unequivocally contribute to strengthening its legitimacy and enhancing its credibility in the eyes of the public and other branches of government. Such a measure, he argued, would align Brazil’s highest court with global standards of judicial transparency and accountability, thereby reinforcing the foundational principles of its democratic framework.
The current political landscape in 2025
The debate surrounding ministerial accountability has been reignited amidst various political developments and public scrutiny. In the hypothetical context of 2025, new petitions for impeachment continue to emerge from opposition sectors, reflecting ongoing tensions within the political sphere.
However, the Public Prosecutor’s Office (PGR) has maintained its position, as seen in past decisions, by denying any “illegality” in the actions related to Minister Moraes and the Banco Master case, leading to the archiving of investigation requests. This stance highlights the complex legal and political hurdles involved in pursuing such high-profile investigations.
Pending investigations and the path forward
Looking ahead, the Federal Police is expected to determine the necessity of a face-to-face confrontation (acareação) between parties involved in the Banco Master case following the completion of all relevant depositions. This step underscores the ongoing nature of the investigative process and the rigorous procedures involved in gathering and verifying evidence. The outcome of these decisions will significantly influence the trajectory of the case and its broader implications for judicial oversight.
