By Pedro Freitas | October 9, 2025

Hey, have you ever stopped to think about what’s going on at the Supreme Federal Court (STF)? A curious and controversial situation is making waves in Brasília: Justice Alexandre de Moraes continues as the rapporteur for an inquiry investigating his former aide Eduardo Tagliaferro, even though his own name appears in the documents. This raises a huge question: is there a conflict of interest here? Let’s break it down together, like a chat between friends, and explore the sides of this issue that shakes the foundations of our judiciary.

The Tagliaferro Case: Understanding the Investigation

First things first, let’s get what’s at stake. Eduardo Tagliaferro was Moraes’ aide, and according to the inquiry, he may have been involved in some irregularities while working in the office. The case is being investigated to uncover what happened, and the details are pretty serious.

What’s Being Investigated:

• Information Leaks: Suspicions of improperly shared confidential data, breaches of procedural secrecy, and misuse of privileged information.
• Administrative Irregularities: Questionable conduct in the office, possible violations of internal rules, and misuse of public funds.
• Suspicious Communications: Messages and exchanges that raised red flags, plus police reports pointing to inappropriate behavior.

The Core Issue: Moraes Appears in the Documents

Here’s where it gets heated: during the Tagliaferro investigation, Alexandre de Moraes’ name popped up in messages, police reports, and other papers. That changed everything!

Types of Mentions:

• Contextual Mentions: References to Moraes as Tagliaferro’s boss, office decisions, and the context of the investigated actions.
• Direct Mentions: Specific conversations with the justice, instructions attributed to him, and interactions with his former aide.
• Mentions in Reports: Police documents citing Moraes, analyses linking the case to his office, and timelines suggesting his possible involvement.

The Removal Request: Denied

Tagliaferro’s defense requested Moraes’ removal from the case, which seems pretty logical, right? But the answer was a flat “no.”

Defense Arguments:

• Bias: A judge shouldn’t rule on a case where he has personal interest, and his past relationship with Tagliaferro compromises impartiality.
• Conflict of Interest: Moraes might want to influence the outcome, given the inquiry could affect his reputation.
• Procedural Guarantee: The Constitution demands an impartial judge, with due process and a guaranteed right to defense.

The Response: Request Denied

Moraes rejected the request, with arguments that split opinions:

• Not Formally Investigated: He claims that mere mentions don’t make him a suspect, with no formal charges against him.
• Legal Authority: As rapporteur, he has the right to continue, and removal would be optional.
• Precedents: He cites similar cases where judges didn’t step down, advocating a strict interpretation of the rules.

Legal Perspectives: What Experts Are Saying?

Jurists are divided on this. Let’s look at both sides?

Arguments Supporting Moraes’ Stay:

• Strict Legality: Technically, he’s not a defendant, and disqualification rules are specific.
• Judicial Autonomy: Judges have independence, and removing him without legal grounds would be interference.
• System Functionality: Removing judges over mentions would create chaos in the judiciary.

Arguments Against (Unfeasibility):

• Constitutional Principles: Impartiality is key, and the appearance of it matters a lot.
• Obvious Conflict of Interest: The outcome could impact Moraes’ reputation, undermining neutrality.
• International Jurisprudence: Global standards would demand removal in such cases.

Precedents: Similar Cases in Brazil and Abroad

This has happened before, both here and overseas. Let’s compare?

Cases in Brazil:

• Operation Car Wash: Criticism of Sergio Moro’s impartiality led to the annulment of cases.
• Fake News Inquiry: Moraes faced questions for holding multiple roles, but the STF upheld it.
• 
  Lower Courts: Removals for conflict are common when doubt arises.

International Examples:

• United States: Judges recuse themselves when mentioned, valuing the appearance of impartiality.
• Europe: The European Court requires both objective and subjective impartiality.
• United Kingdom: The principle is that “justice must be seen to be done.”

The Inquiry’s Silence: Lack of Transparency

The case’s secrecy is making things murkier.

Issues with Excessive Secrecy:

• Impossible Oversight: Society can’t check the process.
• Information Asymmetry: Only investigators have the full facts.
• Risk of Abuse: Secrecy could hide misconduct.

Political Reactions: Predictable Polarization

As always, politics jumped in.

Moraes’ Critics:

• Political Opposition: See abuse of power and accuse Moraes of being above the law.
• Conservative Jurists: Argue it’s legally unsustainable.
• Civil Society: Demand transparency and more oversight.

Moraes’ Supporters:

• Political Allies: Claim criticism is politically motivated.
• Progressive Jurists: Argue removal would be dangerous.
• Part of the Media: Downplay the case, focusing on technical aspects.

The Debate on Ethics and Transparency at the STF

This case highlights bigger issues at the STF.

Structural Issues:

• Lack of External Oversight: The STF self-regulates.
• Excessive Powers: Rapporteurs have strong individual authority.
• Corporatism: Justices tend to protect each other.

Reform Proposals:

• Limited Terms: Suggesting 10-12 years instead of lifetime tenure.
• External Oversight: Supervision by Congress.
• Mandatory Transparency: Less secrecy and more justification.

Impact on Institutional Credibility

Moraes’ decision affects more than just this case.

Negative Effects:

• Erosion of Trust: The public sees injustice.
• Ammunition for Extremists: Fuels anti-democratic narratives.
• International Impact: Harms Brazil’s image.

What Should Happen: Normative Perspectives

From an ideal standpoint, what would be best?

Ideal Scenario:

• Voluntary Removal: Moraes should step aside.
• Maximum Transparency: Lift the secrecy and be accountable.
• Collective Oversight: Involve other justices.

Future Outlook: What to Expect?

The future doesn’t look promising in the short term.

Likely Scenarios:

• Status Quo: Moraes will likely continue, with the inquiry under wraps.
• Growing Pressure: Criticism may intensify.
• Unpredictable Developments: Leaks or new facts could shift everything.

What Could Change the Picture:

• Social Mobilization: Public pressure could help.
• Congressional Action: A CPI or new law might emerge.
• Independent Media: Journalistic investigation could shed light.

Conclusion: A Test for Brazilian Democracy

This case is more than a legal spat—it’s a test for our democracy. The question isn’t just whether Moraes can stay, but whether he should. In strong democracies, the appearance of impartiality matters as much as actual impartiality.

At stake is the STF’s credibility, trust in the judiciary, and equality before the law. Share this article with those who care about these issues and tell me in the comments: what do you think should be done? Let’s debate together!

Sources:

• Consultor Jurídico – Judicial Decisions and STF Cases
• Migalhas – Judiciary Updates
• UOL Notícias – Politics and Justice

Sources used to contextualize the Tagliaferro case and potential conflicts of interest at the STF.