Between reform and attack: Court-curbing and delegitimizing pressures against Brazil’s Supreme Court

Fabiana Oliveira

doi:10.35295/osls.iisl.2524

Authors

Fabiana Luci de Oliveira Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), Department of Sociology https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2324-0106

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2524

Keywords:

Brazil's Supreme Court, court-curbing, reform, attacks, impeachment

Abstract

This article examines court-curbing initiatives and delegitimizing pressures directed against Brazil’s Supreme Court between 2019 and 2022, a period of intense political polarization and expanding autocratic legalism. It distinguishes reforms and criticisms compatible with democratic accountability from attacks aimed at weakening the Court’s legitimacy and constraining its authority. Based on documentary research, the study maps and classifies impeachment petitions, constitutional amendment proposals, and media texts containing criticisms of or attacks on the Court. The findings show that, while some initiatives remained within legitimate institutional dissent, others operated as instruments of institutional pressure or symbolic delegitimation, combining low-feasibility legislative offensives with highly visible public attacks. In this context, Brazil’s Supreme Court became a central target of sustained delegitimization efforts aimed at undermining both its diffuse and specific legitimacy. The case illustrates a broader paradox of courts under stress: visibility may strengthen judicial authority while increasing vulnerability to political and symbolic attacks.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Global Statistics

22 Views	19 Downloads
41 Total

Author Biography

Fabiana Luci de Oliveira, Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), Department of Sociology

Associate Professor.

Research Productivity Fellow of the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq).

References

Aguiar-Aguilar, A. A., 2023. Courts and the judicial erosion of democracy in Latin America. Politics & Policy [online], 51(1), 7–25. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12516 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12516

Aguiar-Aguilar, A. A., 2024. Subverting judicial legitimacy: Presidential rhetoric and democratic erosion in Mexico. DI Working Papers [online], 23, 1–33. Available at: https://democracyinstitute.ceu.edu/articles/azul-aguiar-aguilar-subverting-judicial-legitimacy-presidential-rhetoric-and-democratic.

Aydin-Cakir, A., 2024. The varying effect of court-curbing: Evidence from Hungary and Poland. Journal of European Public Policy [online], 31(5), 1179–1205. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2171089 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2171089

Aydin-Cakir, A., and Akarçay, E. İ., 2025. When do governments attack the judiciary? The explanatory power of political corruption. International Review of Law and Economics [online], 82, 106248. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2025.106248 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2025.106248

Aydin-Cakir, A., and Driscoll, A., 2025. On motives and means: how approach and justification for court-curbing impact public trust. Democratization [online], 32(4), 938-962. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2024.2428271 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2024.2428271

Bartels, B. L., and Johnston, C. D., 2020. Curbing the court: Why the public constrains judicial independence [online]. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316979754 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316979754

Bogéa, D., 2024. ‘Dialogue’ as strategic judicial resistance? The rise and fall of ‘preemptive dialogue’ by the Brazilian Supreme Court. European Politics and Society [online], 25(3), 574–596. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2023.2244392 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2023.2244392

Bogéa, D., 2025. O Supremo limitado: contenção judicial e limites políticos na trajetória institucional do STF [online]. Doctoral dissertation, Universidade de São Paulo. Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da USP. Available at: https://doi.org/10.11606/T.8.2025.tde-20022026-171413. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11606/T.8.2025.tde-20022026-171413

Bogéa, D., and Guimarães, L., 2025. Rotating chief justices in a democracy under stress: The Brazilian Supremo Tribunal Federal under Bolsonaro. International Journal of Constitutional Law [online], 23(1), 263-278. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moaf011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moaf011

Bolognesi, B., Ribeiro, E., and Codato, A., 2023. Uma nova classificação ideológica dos partidos políticos brasileiros. Dados [online], 66(2), e20210164. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1590/dados.2023.66.2.303 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/dados.2023.66.2.303

Brinks, D. M., and Blass, A., 2017. Rethinking judicial empowerment: The new foundations of constitutional justice. International Journal of Constitutional Law [online], 15(2). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mox045 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mox045

Castagnola, A., 2020. La trampa de la manipulación judicial: Un análisis histórico de la manipulación política de la Corte Suprema Argentina. Revista Uruguaya de Ciencia Política, 29(1), 49–79.

Catalano, M. A., 2022. Ex ante and ex post control over courts in the US states: Court curbing and political party influence. Justice System Journal [online], 43(4), 503–523. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2022.2123287 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2022.2123287

Clark, T. S., 2009. The separation of powers, court curbing, and judicial legitimacy. American Journal of Political Science [online], 53(4), 971–989. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00411.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00411.x

Cruz, P. T., 2024. Trusting the courts: Exploring the link between populism, trust in courts, and democracy in Brazil. Journal of Politics in Latin America [online], 0(0). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1866802X241295784. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1866802X241295784

Čuroš, P., 2023. Attack or reform: Systemic interventions in the judiciary in Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 13(2), 626–658. Available at: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1393 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1393

Da Ros, L., and Bogéa, D., 2022. Contenção judicial: Mapa conceitual e pedidos de impeachment de Ministros do Supremo Tribunal Federal. Política & Sociedade [online], 21(52), 184–225. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-7984.2022.e93865 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-7984.2022.e93865

Da Ros, L., and Taylor, M. M., 2022. Bolsonaro and the judiciary: Between accommodation and confrontation. In: P. Birle and B. Speck, eds., Brazil under Bolsonaro: How endangered is democracy? Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut, 44–54.

De Sa e Silva, F., 2022. Law and illiberalism: A sociolegal review and research road map. Annual Review of Law and Social Science [online], 18(1), 193–209. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110921-105921 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110921-105921

Driscoll, A., and Nelson, M. J., 2023a. Are courts ‘different’? Experimental evidence on the unique costs of attacking courts. Research & Politics [online], 10(3), 20531680231188302. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680231188302 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680231188302

Driscoll, A., and Nelson, M. J., 2023b. The costs of court curbing: Evidence from the United States. The Journal of Politics [online], 85(2), 609–624. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/723021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/723021

Easton, D., 1975. A re-assessment of the concept of political support. British Journal of Political Science [online], 5(4), 435–457. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400008309 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400008309

Epps, D., 2025. Nonpartisan Supreme Court reform and the Biden commission. Minnesota Law Review [online], 106(6), 2609–2630. Available at: https://doi.org/10.24926/265535.4380 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24926/265535.4380

García-Holgado, B., 2023. Radicalization and the origins of populist narratives about the courts: The Argentinian case, 2007–2015. Journal of Illiberalism Studies, 3(2), 43–64. DOI: 10.53483/XCMU3555 DOI: https://doi.org/10.53483/XCMU3555

Gibson, J. L., and Nelson, M. J., 2014. The legitimacy of the US Supreme Court: Conventional wisdoms and recent challenges thereto. Annual Review of Law and Social Science [online], 10, 201–219. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110413-030546 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110413-030546

Graver, H. P., 2025. On judges when the rule of law is under attack. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 15(2), 369–394. Available at: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1929 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1929

Helmke, G., 2017. Institutions on the edge: The origins and consequences of inter-branch crises in Latin America [online]. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139031738 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139031738

Hollis-Brusky, A., 2021. Exhuming Brutus: Constitutional rot and cyclical calls for court reform. Missouri Law Review, 86, 517.

Huq, A., Ginsburg, T., and Versteeg, M., 2018. The coming demise of liberal constitutionalism? University of Chicago Law Review, 85(1), 239–255.

Landau, D., 2013. Abusive constitutionalism. UC Davis Law Review, 47(1), 189–260.

Llanos, M., and Tibi Weber, C., 2022. Facing the stress test: Courts and executives during the COVID-19 pandemic [online]. GIGA Focus Lateinamerika. Available at: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-83508-2.

Mark, A., and Zilis, M. A., 2018. Restraining the court: Assessing accounts of congressional attempts to limit Supreme Court authority. Legislative Studies Quarterly [online], 43(1), 141–169. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12187 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12187

Moliterno, J. E., and Čuroš, P., 2021. Recent attacks on judicial independence: The vulgar, the systemic, and the insidious. German Law Journal [online], 22(7), 1159–1191. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2021.63 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2021.63

Office of Foreign Assets Control, 2025. Global Magnitsky designations removals. Recent Actions, December 12.

Oliveira, F. L. de, and Cunha, L. G., 2020. Reformar o Supremo Tribunal Federal?. Revista Estudos Institucionais [online], 6(1), 1–20. Available at: https://doi.org/10.21783/rei.v6i1.457 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21783/rei.v6i1.457

Porat, I., 2023. Apex courts in polarized societies: A comparative study of Brazil, India, and Israel. Comparative Constitutional Law Working Paper [online]. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5078221

Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, 2024. Digital news report 2024: Brazil [online]. University of Oxford. Available at: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2024/brazil

Scheppele, K. L., 2018. Autocratic legalism. University of Chicago Law Review, 85(2), 545–583.

Šipulová, K., and Kosař, D., 2023. Decay or erosion? The role of informal institutions in challenges faced by democratic judiciaries. German Law Journal [online], 24(8), 1577–1595. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.89 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.89

Southworth, A., 2024. Big money unleashed: The campaign to deregulate election spending [online]. University of Chicago Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226830728.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226830728.001.0001

Stephenson, S., 2023. Are political ‘attacks’ on the judiciary ever justifiable? The relationship between unfair criticism and public accountability. The American Journal of Comparative Law [online], 71(3), 748–776. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avad034 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avad034

U.S. Department of the Treasury, 2025. Treasury sanctions Alexandre de Moraes. Press Release, July 30.