Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court is facing its most intense internal dispute since the country’s return to democracy in the 1980s, as tensions between two prominent justices have escalated amid the final weeks of the presidential election campaign. The conflict, which surfaced publicly during a highly charged court hearing on Tuesday, highlights the deep political divisions within the judiciary and raises concerns about the potential impact on Latin America’s largest democracy.
At the center of the confrontation are Justices Alexandre de Moraes and André Mendonça, whose bitter exchanges during a livestreamed session reflected broader national political tensions. Moraes accused Mendonça of serving political interests linked to a failed coup attempt, to which Mendonça vehemently denied the claim. Another justice, Gilmar Mendes, also criticized Mendonça for allegedly exploiting the court’s proceedings to create political instability ahead of the October 30 presidential vote.
The dispute reflects underlying factionalism corresponding to the intense battle between left-wing incumbent Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and his far-right challenger, Flávio Bolsonaro. Moraes, appointed nearly a decade ago by former right-wing president Michel Temer, has since been associated with Lula, notably for his role in prosecuting former president Jair Bolsonaro following the latter’s 2022 election defeat and subsequent coup attempt. Mendonça, appointed during Bolsonaro’s presidency, is perceived by leftist opponents as aligned with the former leader, who is currently serving a 27-year prison sentence.
The conflict sharpens against the backdrop of the growing Banco Master scandal, which began in November with the arrest of Daniel Vercaro, the now-jailed former owner of a collapsed bank, on charges linked to various elite figures in Brazil’s political and judicial circles. Investigations have uncovered alleged ties between Vercaro and both the Bolsonaro family and Moraes. Mendonça faces accusations of expediting scrutiny into Moraes while delaying investigations related to Vercaro’s connections with the Bolsonaros, including financing a film about Jair Bolsonaro.
Earlier this month, Mendonça released a sealed police dossier revealing WhatsApp messages exchanged between Vercaro and Moraes, along with a contract between Banco Master and Moraes’s wife’s law firm. In one message, Vercaro appeared to seek advice from Moraes about fleeing the country shortly before his arrest.
In response, Moraes denounced the allegations as politically motivated “criminal lies” aimed at revenge by right-wing factions linked to the January 2023 riots in Brasília. He also suggested foreign interference attempts to destabilize the election, accusing “external actors” of involvement in the smear campaign.
On Tuesday, the court convened to consider whether to initiate an investigation into Moraes’s conduct, following his request for a probe into Mendonça. The judicial crisis has erupted just weeks before Brazil’s presidential election, with polls indicating a tight race leading to a probable runoff between Lula and Bolsonaro on October 25.
Constitutional law expert Eloísa Machado described the timing as highly problematic, warning that the situation aggravates existing challenges posed by extremist and anti-democratic groups in Brazil. Machado emphasized that Lula was not responsible for the situation involving Moraes, noting the judge was not appointed by the current president.
Nonetheless, the controversy threatens to complicate Lula’s bid for a fourth presidential term, given the public’s strong association of Moraes with the left-wing leader due to the judge’s role in Bolsonaro’s legal troubles. Flávio Bolsonaro, in a social media statement amid the hearing, attributed the scandal to Lula’s administration, accusing it of perpetuating a corrupt system, though he omitted any mention of his own alleged connection to Vercaro.
Political analyst Thomas Traumann forecast that the scandal would intensify the campaign’s descent into personal attacks and mudslinging, as both camps seek to undermine their opponents’ credibility ahead of the decisive vote.