- A Coup Foretold: Brazil Confronts the Depths of a Plot to Kill Lula - 4 April, 2025
- Down to the Rubbish: How Media Built Brazil’s Celebrity Judges - 17 March, 2025
- Brazil’s Supreme Court: Democracy in Crisis? - 5 March, 2025
For over a decade, trials involving political elites have propelled Brazilian judicial figures into the public eye, with several acquiring celebrity status. This shift is remarkably illustrated by the careers of Joaquim Barbosa, Sergio Moro, and Alexandre de Moraes—three magistrates whose prominence has extended beyond ‘cold law’ into the realm of politics. Each appeals to different segments of society: Moro became a celebrated figure among right-wing groups while alienating much of the left; Moraes has found support among Bolsonaro’s critics while facing fierce opposition from his allies; and Barbosa, who initially clashed with the left during the ‘Mensalão’ trials, later gained some of their favour as a critic of Bolsonaro. Together, these cases show how judicial celebrity has cut across ideological lines, with courts increasingly constituting a backyard of politics in Brazil.
Joaquim Barbosa: A Maverick in Court
— President, how do you see…
— I don’t see anything. Leave me alone, boy. Leave me alone! Get down to the rubbish like you always do.Exchange between a journalist and the then president of Brazil’s Supreme Court (STF), Joaquim Barbosa. March 2013.
Within the Supreme Federal Court (STF)—often perceived as a secluded institution—Justice Joaquim Barbosa became a household name during his handling of the ‘Mensalão’ trials (2005–2012). ‘Mensalão’ was a major corruption scandal involving alleged payments to congresspeople for support under then-president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. It led to the conviction of several high-ranking members of the ruling Workers’ Party (PT), many of whom later had their sentences reduced or overturned.
‘Mensalão’ resonated deeply with a sentiment pervasive across Brazilian society, namely, distrust in political institutions. Sectors of the media and society alike made Barbosa a hero—a mythos built not on rulings alone but also his bold, often confrontational demeanour; he was famously critical of other justices, whom he denounced as sympathetic toward the elites. His no-nonsense engagement with the press was marked by headline-prone statements, such as ‘those who thought the Supreme Court would have a submissive, subservient black man were mistaken.’ Mountingly, the ‘Mensalão’ trials acquired the guise of a moral battle rather than a mere legal affair.
In the lead-up to 2013’s carnaval, a mask factory in São Gonçalo (Rio de Janeiro) announced it would issue 120 masks depicting Barbosa—a modest amount to gauge consumer response. A week before the festivities, however, the manufacturer had sold 25,000 of the props with a further 15,000 underway.
Many eyes eventually turned to Barbosa, now a celebrity, as a potential leader beyond the Supreme Court. When asked whether he planned to run for an elected office, he denied. ‘I have no interest,’ the justice told the press. ‘I have no phisique du rôle.’ And yet, the opening was there: upon his retirement from the STF, Brazil’s Socialist Party (PSB) urged him to run as their candidate for the 2018 presidential election. Though Barbosa ultimately declined the offer, he did not do so right away. Several surveys were conducted in the meantime, with the polls coming thereof projecting strong support for his candidacy.
The Elusive Rise of Sergio Moro
Judge Sergio Moro rose to fame through his role in ‘Lava Jato’ (2014-2018), arguably Brazil’s biggest anti-corruption operation to date. Starting as a money laundering investigation into Brazil’s state-owned oil utility, Petrobras, ‘Lava Jato’ went on to uncover a network of high-ranking politicians, business leaders, and construction firms that exchanged government contracts for bribes. As the judge presiding over the case, Moro oversaw the condemnation of multiple high-ranking officials, including the chief-of-staff in Lula’s first administration (2003-2006), and the deputy speaker of the lower house of Congress. These rulings had Moro regularly under spotlights, but none had a greater impact than his sentencing of ex-president Lula to nearly 10 years in jail.
The magistrate would become one of the most polarising figures in Brazil’s recent times. While critics, throughout the operation, accused him of politically motivated decision-making, supporters saw a national hero. They would pour into the streets wearing masks and t-shirts bearing Moro’s semblance, and even a 39-foot ‘Superman’ statue was raised in his honour. ‘MORO FOR PRESIDENT’ soon turned into a common motif. When interrogated by the ‘Lava Jato’ judge, Lula famously remarked that Moro was ‘condemned to condemn’ him, since much of the public already had.
Like Barbosa before him, Moro vehemently denied he would ever run for office: “No, never. Never. I’m a man of justice and, without any demur, I’m not a man of politics.” Elaborating on his reasons, he explained: “It wouldn’t be appropriate for me to run for any kind of political office because that could, let’s put it this way, call into question the integrity of the work I’ve done so far.”
Nonetheless, a few weeks after sentencing Lula to jail, Moro announced he would quit ‘Lava Jato’ to join the presidency of Jair Bolsonaro—Lula’s main political adversary—as Minister of Justice and Public Security. Whilst performing this role, he again denied that he would ever run for office. In 2022, Moro was elected senator with 1.9 million votes.
Alexandre de Moraes’ Tale of Two Cities
Justice Alexandre de Moraes presided over the Supreme Electoral Court (TSE) during the 2022 elections, the closest in Brazil’s history. Known by the nickname ‘Xandão,’ he became known for hard-line decisions, such as barring Bolsonaro from political office until 2030 and authorising the blocking of social media accounts accused of election-related misinformation. Following the January 8th riots at the Three Powers Plaza, in which pro-Bolsonaro protestors contested the election results, Moraes oversaw the prosecution of over 200 individuals, issuing sentences of up to 17 years. While his stringency has earned him supporters who view him as a protector of democracy, detractors have labeled him a ‘dictator,’ claiming his actions overreach. Notwithstanding different sentiments around him, Moraes’ decisions have been closely scrutinised across the political spectrum.
The justice was recently launched to worldwide notoriety amid a feud with billionaire Elon Musk. When Musk’s social media platform X (formerly Twitter) announced its plans to cease operations in Brazil, Moraes mandated the appointment of a local legal representative to ensure compliance with Brazilian law. Musk’s non-responsiveness resulted in the STF ordering the suspension of X in the country. In a sharp rebuttal, Musk called Moraes an ‘unelected pseudo-judge.‘ He commenced a series of posts in ridicule of the magistrate, some of which compared him to pop culture villains Darth Vader (‘Star Wars’) and Lord Voldemort (‘Harry Potter’).
There has been some speculation on whether Moraes could eventually transition to politics. His career before the STF included several political roles, such as São Paulo State Secretary of Public Security (2002, 2015–2016) and Minister of Justice and Public Security (2016–2017). Behind his ambivalent persona, which combines the sternness of a law enforcer with a jokester, a ‘meme-worthy’ approach to criticism, Moraes may yet seize the silver lining in his divisiveness.
Moving Forward
The cases of Barbosa, Moraes, and now-senator Moro reflect a broader trend. Whilst the judicial branch’s attributions and powers were specifically outlined to limit political interference, its role in mediating high-profile controversies has put magistrates under a level of spotlight hitherto unseen. This has brought a new set of challenges to their function, particularly regarding the duty of impartiality (grounding rulings on law over personal predilections).
It may be a stretch to affirm that fame and neutrality can categorically not coexist—but the former veritably constitutes an obstacle to the latter. As Carl Schmitt once wrote, ‘The political is the most intense and extreme antagonism.’ Judges presiding over high-profile cases are not external observers: they too have stakes in the game. Political ramifications deriving from their rulings interweave with their own reputations, especially amid polarisation. In such circumstances, it is no easy job to discern where a judge ends and a ‘public figure’ begins.
Wide access to information has been key to promoting democratic participation, but it has also brought new challenges to the separation of powers. If, on the one hand, the judicial branch is reliant upon trust for legitimacy and public compliance, a rise in ‘celebrity judges’ endangers the very condition of this trust, namely, the presumption of impartiality. Media scrutiny puts the judiciary on a delicate spot—particularly in Brazil, a nation notoriously distrustful of its political institutions.
Faced with these challenges, specialists have proposed several avenues to mitigate the politicisation of judges in Brazil. These include:
- Stricter post-tenure protocols, such as mandatory cooling-off periods before judges can run for public office or accept politically linked roles.
- Promoting collegiate rather than monocratic decision-making in judicial panels, particularly within the STF. For instance, reliance on ex-ante deliberations (prior to public disclosure) could reiterate institutional-level authority, counterweighting the practice of ruling independently.
- Guidelines restricting judges’ interactions with the press, minimising or altogether barring public commentary on ongoing cases. To safeguard transparency, this could be supplemented with the anonymisation of the judges responsible for drafting opinions when decisions are made public.
- Periodic rotations for judges handling high-profile cases, so as to limit their association with specific political outcomes.
- Reinforcing the judicial ethics code, further stressing the role of individual conduct on the dignity of the judiciary and the confidence placed therein.
- Accordingly, implementing heavier penalties for violations of the code.
Questions
- How should transparency be balanced with the need for judicial independence?
- What will future generations of Brazilian magistrates look like? Is their role evolving somehow?
- Can today’s ‘infodemic’ be streamlined to enhance, rather than undermine, justice?
Recommended Readings
Lerner, Craig S., and Nelson Lund. 2009. “Judicial Duty and the Supreme Court’s Cult of Celebrity.” George Washington Law Review 78: 1255.
Queiroz, Marcos M. 2018. “Heróis de capa: dos tribunais para as listas de intenção de votos. A representação dos juízes Joaquim Barbosa e Sergio Moro nas capas das principais revistas brasileiras entre 2007 e 2017.” Estudos em Comunicação 2.26.
Rocha, Álvaro F. O. 2014. “Judiciário e mídia: o problema da realização da cidadania no Brasil.” Revista Direito, Estado e Sociedade 34.
.jpg){kind=link}
Absolutely insightful and balanced. Thanks!