Brazil’s political and judicial landscape has been thrown into fresh turmoil as the fallout from former President Jair Bolsonaro’s ongoing legal battles continues to ripple across the country. In a week punctuated by dramatic developments, Bolsonaro’s legal team filed extraordinary appeals against Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, while his son, federal deputy Eduardo Bolsonaro, had his mandate revoked by the Chamber of Deputies for excessive absences. Meanwhile, the elder Bolsonaro, serving a 27-year prison sentence for plotting a coup, received court authorization for a surgical procedure, reigniting debate over the intersection of politics, justice, and public opinion in Brazil.
On December 18, 2025, the Chamber of Deputies voted to revoke Eduardo Bolsonaro’s mandate, citing his absence from more than a third of the chamber’s ordinary sessions this legislative year—a violation of Article 55 of the Federal Constitution. According to SBT News, Eduardo, who has been residing in the United States since February, did not present a formal defense to the Chamber. When pressed on this decision, he remarked, “Do you think it will be of any use for me to defend myself? Or will it just legitimize this process?” He further asserted that the Chamber made no effort to contact him regarding the proceedings.
Eduardo Bolsonaro’s removal comes amid accusations that the president of the Chamber, Hugo Motta, acted under pressure from the judiciary. In an interview reported by SBT News, Eduardo claimed, “Hugo Motta is being threatened by Moraes. Motta changed his opinion on a lot of things, including amnesty after the PF, at the behest of Moraes, carried out an operation against his father’s city hall. So, in this way, Hugo Motta did not allow me to be leader of the minority. As leader of the minority, no need to be present in the Chamber.” The assertion that Motta’s actions were influenced by Supreme Federal Court Minister Alexandre de Moraes underscores the deepening rift between Brazil’s legislative and judicial branches.
While the Chamber’s decision represents a significant setback for the Bolsonaro family’s political ambitions, the elder Bolsonaro’s legal woes have continued to dominate headlines. On December 19, 2025, Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes authorized Jair Bolsonaro to leave the Federal Police Superintendency in Brasília, where he is serving his sentence, for a surgical procedure to treat a hernia. The authorization followed a request from Bolsonaro’s defense team, who also sought—but were denied—permission for him to serve his sentence under humanitarian house arrest.
According to Reuters, the Federal Police physicians, after conducting a medical examination on December 18, concluded that Bolsonaro should undergo surgery for the hernia. The former president’s lawyers will select the date for the operation, as Justice Moraes did not stipulate one in his ruling. “The defendant is being held in a location very close to the private hospital where he receives emergency medical care … so there is no harm in the event of a possible need for emergency transport,” Moraes wrote in his decision.
Bolsonaro’s health issues are not new. He has a documented history of hospitalizations and surgeries stemming from a stabbing attack during the 2018 campaign. Before his most recent arrest, he had spent over 100 days under house arrest for violating precautionary measures in a separate case involving allegations of seeking U.S. interference to halt legal proceedings against him.
Against this backdrop, Bolsonaro’s defense team launched a fresh legal offensive on December 20, 2025, filing infringement appeals—known in Brazil as “embargos infringentes”—targeting Justice Alexandre de Moraes. As Mix Vale explains, these appeals are reserved for cases where a higher court’s decision is not unanimous, allowing for a re-examination of dissenting points. While legal experts widely regard the likelihood of success as slim, the move is seen as a calculated effort to prolong proceedings and spark public debate about the legitimacy and impartiality of the judiciary.
Political analysts cited by Mix Vale suggest that the real objective of the infringement appeals is not to overturn Bolsonaro’s conviction, but to “provoke a deeper examination and public discourse on the judicial process, particularly concerning the decisions made against the former president, influencing future legal discussions into 2025.” By keeping the case in the public eye, the defense hopes to shape the narrative and maintain political relevance for Bolsonaro and his allies.
The Supreme Court’s response to these appeals is being closely watched. Historically, infringement appeals are rarely granted by the court, especially in cases that have already undergone extensive review. Still, the process introduces an additional layer of scrutiny and can delay the final resolution of politically charged cases. As Mix Vale notes, “The immediate implication of presenting such a motion is to introduce an additional layer of review, potentially delaying the finality of a judgment.”
Justice Alexandre de Moraes, a central figure in the legal battles involving Bolsonaro, has frequently found himself the target of both legal challenges and public criticism. The latest round of appeals is widely interpreted as a direct challenge to his authority and the Supreme Court’s rulings. The outcome of these proceedings is expected to set important precedents for how future legal disputes involving political figures are handled in Brazil, particularly as the country approaches another election cycle in 2025.
Legal experts emphasize that the use of infringement appeals in such high-profile cases serves a dual purpose: while the chance of legal victory remains low, the process itself provides a platform for the defense to question the fairness of the judicial system and to rally public support. “Such tactics are not solely about winning in court but also about influencing public perception and maintaining political relevance through prolonged legal battles,” Mix Vale observes.
As for the broader implications, the ongoing tensions between political actors and the judiciary are shaping not only individual cases but also the public’s trust in Brazil’s institutions. Each legal maneuver and the judiciary’s response contribute to the evolving jurisprudence and the boundaries of legal challenges in a democratic society. The Supreme Court’s handling of the infringement appeals will send a clear message about the finality of its decisions and the resilience of judicial institutions under intense political scrutiny.
For now, the Bolsonaro saga remains a vivid illustration of the complex interplay between politics and justice in Brazil. With Eduardo Bolsonaro’s political future in question, Jair Bolsonaro’s health and legal battles in the spotlight, and the Supreme Court’s authority repeatedly tested, the coming months promise to be pivotal for the country’s democratic institutions and the rule of law.
As legal and political strategies continue to collide, one thing is certain: the outcomes of these high-stakes confrontations will shape Brazil’s political and judicial landscape for years to come.
