Brazil is no stranger to political drama, but the first week of December 2025 brought a particularly combustible mix to the nation’s capital. In a matter of days, the country’s Supreme Federal Court (STF), Congress, and citizens found themselves locked in a high-stakes tug-of-war over the very foundations of Brazil’s democracy. The flashpoint? A controversial ruling by Supreme Court Justice Gilmar Mendes, a series of legislative maneuvers in Congress, and mass protests that rippled through every corner of the country.
It all began on December 3, when Justice Gilmar Mendes issued a solo decision that would send shockwaves through Brazil’s political establishment. According to Valor Econômico, Mendes ruled that only the prosecutor general could request the impeachment of Supreme Court justices and that opening such proceedings would require the backing of two-thirds of the Senate. This was no mere technicality. For decades, any citizen could file an impeachment request against a justice—a right now suspended by Mendes’s ruling.
The decision immediately escalated tensions between the judiciary and the legislature. Lawmakers across the political spectrum accused Mendes of overstepping his authority and attempting to shield the Supreme Court from accountability. Senate President Davi Alcolumbre, of the center-right Brazil Union Party, called the move an encroachment on legislative powers, expressing outrage that was echoed by many of his colleagues. Alcolumbre’s frustration had already been simmering after clashes with the executive branch over a Supreme Court vacancy nomination, but Mendes’s ruling brought matters to a boil.
Opposition lawmakers wasted no time in responding. According to Valor Econômico, some began considering the revival of a bill authored by Senate Speaker Rodrigo Pacheco to revise impeachment rules for a range of authorities, including Supreme Court justices. Others floated the idea of a constitutional amendment to restore the sections of the Impeachment Law that Mendes had suspended—most notably, the provision allowing any citizen to file a request. Congressman Nikolas Ferreira, of the Liberal Party, took to social media to denounce Mendes’s decision, declaring, “Brazil already has a clear law: any citizen can report Supreme Court justices for crimes of responsibility. It’s always been that way. But in a solo decision with no constitutional basis, Justice Gilmar Mendes decided to rewrite the law, restrict the rights of the people, and infringe on the Senate’s authority.”
Ferreira went further, accusing Mendes of “judicial activism” and promising to introduce a constitutional amendment to preserve the current rules. Lawmakers from the Liberal Party, New Party, and Republicans Party also condemned the ruling, some recalling their own impeachment requests against Mendes and, more recently, Justice Alexandre de Moraes. Senator Eduardo Girão, of the New Party, was blunt: “The justice had already expressed his views in multiple interviews and should have recused himself. He and Moraes top the list of justices facing impeachment requests in the Senate. Now it’s a matter of either shutting down the Senate altogether or responding urgently and forcefully.”
Justice Mendes, for his part, defended his decision in strong terms. In his ruling, he argued that impeachment is an “extraordinary measure” and cautioned that threats of removal based on judicial decisions undermine the judiciary’s independence and the rule of law. “When the judiciary is subject to abusive external pressure, such as impeachment threats based on the substance of judicial decisions, it loses its ability to serve as a legitimate and impartial counterweight to the other branches of government, becoming just another tool for political groups,” Mendes wrote. He warned that using impeachment as a political weapon “undermines the very structure of the rule of law” and erodes public trust in “one of the country’s most vital institutions.”
The ruling was not without precedent. As Valor Econômico noted, Mendes is the rapporteur for two cases challenging Brazil’s 1950 Impeachment Law. Both the Solidarity Party and the Brazilian Association of Magistrates (AMB) have argued that only the prosecutor general should be able to file impeachment charges, with the Office of the Prosecutor General supporting this view. The full Supreme Court is set to vote on whether to uphold Mendes’s ruling in a virtual session scheduled for December 12, 2025.
Meanwhile, the political atmosphere in Congress was already charged. According to an analysis in Folha de S.Paulo, the Legislature has become increasingly assertive—some would say aggressive—in its dealings with the judiciary and executive. Unlike parliamentary regimes, Brazil’s Congress does not dissolve or call for new elections at the head of state’s behest. Instead, it has flexed its muscles through threats, blackmail, and tumult, most recently during the Supreme Court nomination episode. The article described a Congress dominated by lawmakers who pursue personal enrichment and patrimonialism, united around a reactionary agenda in opposition to President Lula and, crucially, to STF decisions based on Federal Police investigations.
The same week, Congress advanced two controversial measures. On November 26, the lower house passed a constitutional amendment making it harder to arrest or prosecute lawmakers, a move widely seen as self-protective. The following day, it fast-tracked a bill that could grant amnesty to former President Jair Bolsonaro, his allies, and hundreds of supporters convicted for their roles in the January 2023 uprising. Bolsonaro, who was sentenced to 27 years and three months in prison on September 11 for attempting to overturn the 2022 election, remains a polarizing figure. The prospect of amnesty for him and his supporters ignited widespread outrage.
On Sunday, December 1, that outrage spilled into the streets. As reported by CNN, Brazilians in all 26 states and the Federal District protested against a possible pardon for Bolsonaro and his allies. The demonstrations, organized by artists and left-wing groups, saw music legends Caetano Veloso, Chico Buarque, and Gilberto Gil take to the stage in Rio de Janeiro’s Copacabana neighborhood. “I was outraged by the news that many deputies voted in favor of a shielding law for themselves and their colleagues,” Veloso told UOL. Superstar Anitta echoed the sentiment, urging Brazilians to hold politicians accountable: “We have the right and the duty to hold politicians accountable. After all, we vote and they work for the good of the population.”
The protests were notable not just for their size—spanning every state—but for their timing and symbolism. They came on the heels of right-wing rallies in support of Bolsonaro earlier in the year, highlighting the country’s deep divisions. According to a Datafolha poll released on September 16, 50% of Brazilians supported Bolsonaro’s imprisonment, while 43% opposed it. The numbers underscore a nation split almost down the middle, with the battle over the judiciary’s independence now a proxy for broader struggles over democracy, accountability, and the rule of law.
As the year draws to a close and the Supreme Court prepares for its crucial December 12 session, Brazil’s institutions—and its people—face a defining test. With the stakes higher than ever, the outcome will shape not just the future of the judiciary, but the trajectory of Brazilian democracy itself.
