Hostility toward judges turned into a brand, outrage into a campaign.
In Brazil, where the line between law and politics has grown increasingly thin, Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes stepped forward last week to name what he sees as a calculated performance: politicians without genuine electoral footing, he argued, have turned hostility toward the judiciary into a campaign strategy — using the court as a ladder precisely because they cannot build one of their own. The remarks, delivered from within the institution under attack, mark a notable shift from judicial restraint to judicial candor, as the STF signals it will not remain a silent target ahead of the 2026 electoral cycle.
- Moraes publicly accused low-support politicians of manufacturing relevance by positioning themselves as enemies of the court — calling it an 'electoral ladder' built from outrage rather than policy.
- The accusation carried an unmistakable edge, with Brazilian media reading it as a pointed, if indirect, reference to Minas Gerais Governor Romeu Zema, raising the temperature between the court and prominent opposition figures.
- Justice Flávio Dino joined Moraes in defending the court's conduct, presenting a rare unified front of justices willing to speak openly about the political dynamics surrounding the institution.
- The STF's First Panel simultaneously rejected a criminal complaint filed by deputy Gustavo Gayer against a fellow deputy, closing one flashpoint even as broader institutional tensions continued to build.
- With 2026 approaching and Moraes already at the center of fierce criticism over his oversight of the January 8 investigations, the court's decision to name the pattern rather than absorb it quietly signals an escalating confrontation neither side appears willing to avoid.
Alexandre de Moraes, one of Brazil's most polarizing Supreme Court justices, made his diagnosis public last week: politicians who cannot win votes, he said, have taken to attacking the STF as a way of building a political base. He called it an 'electoral ladder' — a strategy of verbal aggression against the judiciary designed not to reform it, but to climb on its back.
The remarks landed with considerable weight, coming from a sitting justice speaking directly about the political environment surrounding his own institution. Brazilian media noted what appeared to be an indirect reference to Minas Gerais Governor Romeu Zema, though Moraes framed it broadly. The message, however, was unmistakable: he sees the pattern, and he intends to say so. Justice Flávio Dino stood alongside him, defending the court's conduct and presenting what amounted to a unified front — the STF is not passive, and it will not pretend otherwise.
The same day, the court's First Panel rejected a criminal complaint filed by federal deputy Gustavo Gayer against fellow deputy José Nelto over alleged verbal offenses — a smaller but symbolically resonant episode in the ongoing friction that defines Brazilian political life.
The broader context is a political landscape heating up well ahead of 2026. The STF has been a recurring target for opposition and right-leaning figures who frame it as overreaching and politically motivated. Moraes himself has drawn fierce attacks for overseeing investigations into the January 8, 2023 riots in Brasília. What distinguishes his latest remarks is their directness: rather than defending specific rulings, he went after the political logic of the attacks themselves, arguing the criticism is not principled opposition but performance.
Whether that framing persuades anyone beyond the court's existing supporters is uncertain. For politicians who have built followings by attacking institutions, being told by a Supreme Court justice that their strategy is transparent is unlikely to slow them down — and may, in fact, confirm the narrative they've been selling all along.
Alexandre de Moraes, one of Brazil's most prominent and polarizing Supreme Court justices, stepped into the open last week with a pointed accusation: politicians who can't win votes, he said, have taken to attacking the court as a way of building a political base. He called it an "electoral ladder" — a calculated strategy of verbal aggression against the judiciary designed not to reform it, but to climb on its back.
The remarks came during proceedings at the Supremo Tribunal Federal, Brazil's highest court, and landed with the weight of a sitting justice speaking directly about the political environment surrounding the institution he serves. Moraes did not mince the diagnosis. Politicians lacking genuine electoral support, he argued, manufacture relevance by positioning themselves as enemies of the court — turning hostility toward judges into a brand, and outrage into a campaign.
The comments carried an unmistakable subtext. Brazilian media noted what appeared to be a pointed reference to Romeu Zema, the governor of Minas Gerais, though the remark was framed as indirect. Whether aimed at Zema specifically or at a broader class of critics, the message was clear: Moraes sees the pattern, names it, and is not inclined to stay quiet about it.
He was not alone on the bench in pushing back. Justice Flávio Dino, also a member of the STF, used the same moment to defend the court's conduct in the face of ongoing criticism. The two justices, in effect, presented a unified front — the court is not passive, and it intends to say so.
The same day brought a separate but related development. The STF's First Panel rejected a criminal complaint filed by federal deputy Gustavo Gayer against fellow deputy José Nelto over alleged verbal offenses. The case had drawn attention as an example of the kind of interpersonal and institutional friction that has come to define Brazilian political life in recent years. The panel's refusal to advance the complaint closed that particular avenue, at least for now.
The broader backdrop is a Brazilian political landscape heating up well ahead of the 2026 electoral cycle. The STF has been a recurring target for opposition figures and right-leaning politicians who frame the court as overreaching, politically motivated, or hostile to democratic accountability. Moraes himself has been at the center of that criticism — he has overseen investigations into the January 8, 2023 riots in Brasília, and his decisions have drawn fierce attacks from supporters of former president Jair Bolsonaro.
What makes his latest remarks notable is the directness of the framing. Rather than defending specific rulings or engaging with legal arguments, Moraes went to the political logic of the attacks themselves. He is saying, in effect, that the criticism is not principled opposition — it is a performance, and the audience is a voter base that responds to judicial enemies the way it once responded to other kinds of enemies.
Whether that framing persuades anyone outside the court's existing supporters is another question. For politicians who have built followings precisely by attacking institutions like the STF, being told by a Supreme Court justice that their strategy is transparent is unlikely to slow them down. If anything, it may confirm the narrative they've been selling.
With 2026 approaching, the friction between Brazil's judiciary and its most vocal political critics shows no sign of easing. Moraes has now made clear that the court intends to name what it sees — and the politicians on the other side of that argument are equally unlikely to stand down.
Citas Notables
Politicians without votes use verbal attacks on the judiciary as an electoral ladder.— Justice Alexandre de Moraes, STF
Dino defended the court's conduct and its actions in response to ongoing criticism.— Justice Flávio Dino, STF
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
What's actually new here — judges have always had critics.
What's new is a sitting Supreme Court justice publicly naming the political strategy behind the attacks, not just defending the court's rulings.
Why does Moraes use the phrase 'electoral ladder' specifically?
Because it reframes the attacks as opportunism rather than principle — he's saying these politicians aren't reformers, they're climbers.
Is there a specific politician he's targeting?
The press read it as a dig at Romeu Zema, the governor of Minas Gerais, though Moraes kept it indirect during the session.
And Dino speaking up at the same time — is that coordination?
It reads that way. Two justices, same moment, same message. The court is signaling it won't absorb criticism silently.
What does the Gayer complaint rejection add to the picture?
It shows the court also closing off legal avenues being used as political theater — Gayer filing against Nelto was itself a kind of performance.
So the court is essentially fighting back on multiple fronts?
Yes — rhetorically through Moraes, institutionally through the First Panel. It's a coordinated posture, not a coincidence.
Does this help the STF or does it just feed the cycle?
That's the real question. Naming the game might satisfy supporters, but it also gives critics exactly the confrontation they were looking for.