{"id":349569,"date":"2026-04-10T09:59:07","date_gmt":"2026-04-10T13:59:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/villanews.com.br\/?p=349569"},"modified":"2026-04-10T09:59:07","modified_gmt":"2026-04-10T13:59:07","slug":"serial-arbitrariness-104-abusive-decisions-by-alexandre-de-moraes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/villanews.com.br\/?p=349569","title":{"rendered":"Serial Arbitrariness: 104 abusive decisions by Alexandre de Moraes"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

At the most basic level of democracy, investigating, ordering precautionary measures, and judging are separate tasks. In Alexandre de Moraes’s Brazil, however, those functions accumulated in the hands of the same Supreme Court justice. And this has been happening for years.<\/p>\n

“The concentration of functions transforms the current accusatory model set out in the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure into a purely inquisitorial one,” warns jurist Katia Magalh\u00e3es.<\/p>\n

“The judge abandons institutional inertia to assume functions that should belong to the police and the Public Prosecutor’s Office, forming judgments incompatible with impartiality,” she adds.<\/p>\n

Since March 2019, when he accepted the reporting assignment in an inquiry handed to him without a random draw and in which he was at once the rapporteur and the declared victim, Moraes has accumulated decisions that jurists, press organizations, politicians, and even some fellow justices describe as unprecedented in the history of the Supreme Federal Court.<\/p>\n

The justice’s defenders claim it was all done to protect democracy. Katia does not buy that idea.<\/p>\n

“Interpreting is not saying what the rule should be in light of undefined parameters such as ‘preservation of the democratic order.’ There is no innocent interpretive extrapolation; expansions created by the interpreter are already enough to constitute abuse.”<\/p>\n

Another pattern identified in Moraes’s decisions is the targeting of third parties with no direct connection to the proceedings: users fined for using VPNs, companies whose accounts were blocked to pay the debts of others, even teenagers with their profiles taken down.<\/p>\n

“The imposition of sanctions on third parties is a frontal violation of the principle of individual criminal responsibility, protected as a constitutional guarantee and an entrenched clause,” the jurist says.<\/p>\n

And what about institutional checks? The Senate has 43 requests for impeachment<\/em> sitting idle, but none has been acted on. For Katia Magalh\u00e3es, that is a choice, not a limitation: “The Senate could stand out as the main check, both by opening impeachment proceedings against abusive justices, without needing the approval of the chamber’s president, and by carefully selecting candidates for positions at the top of the Judiciary.”<\/p>\n

Based on this record, Gazeta do Povo<\/strong>‘s reporting mapped 104 cases of abuses attributed to Alexandre Moraes. Below, case by case, see the reach and impact of those decisions.<\/p>\n

The endless inquiry<\/strong><\/h2>\n

1. Continuing to run an inquiry in which he considers himself the victim<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4781<\/p>\n

Date: March 14, 2019 \u2014 still in effect<\/p>\n

The so-called Fake News Inquiry was opened by the then president of the STF, Dias Toffoli, and handed to Alexandre de Moraes without a random draw – by direct choice. From the outset, Moraes occupied an unusual position: besides running the case, he was also one of the targets of the alleged offenses under investigation, since the inquiry concerns attacks on justices of the court, including himself. Even so, he did not recuse himself or ask for the case to be reassigned. In practice, it is as if an investigation were being conducted by the very person who considers himself the victim.<\/p>\n

2. Censorship of Cruso\u00e9<\/em> magazine and the website O Antagonista<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4781<\/p>\n

Date: April 2019<\/p>\n

Moraes ordered Cruso\u00e9<\/em> magazine and the website O Antagonista<\/em> to take down the report “My Father’s Friend’s Friend,” which linked the then-president of the STF, Dias Toffoli, to Lava Jato documents involving Odebrecht. The Brazilian Bar Association, journalists’ organizations, and justices of the court itself classified the order as prior censorship – expressly forbidden by Article 220 of the Constitution. Moraes revoked the decision five days later.<\/p>\n

3. Investigation into the financing of false news<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4781, INQ 4828, INQ 4879, INQ 4888 and INQ 4874<\/p>\n

Date: 2019-2022-2023<\/p>\n

The justice expanded the original inquiry and opened several lines of investigation to examine the alleged financing of disinformation networks. Over time, the focus ceased to be only threats against justices and came to include digital campaigns, also reaching lawmakers and businesspeople. This expansion, without clear limits, distorts the object of the investigation and departs from the standard expected in criminal investigations, which should have a well-defined focus.<\/p>\n

4. Order for Telegram to publish a forced retraction<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4781<\/p>\n

Date: May 10, 2023<\/p>\n

Alexandre de Moraes gave Telegram only one hour to delete messages sent to all Brazilian users criticizing PL 2630 (a bill proposing rules to combat disinformation on social networks) and replace them with a notice stating that the previous content was “blatant and unlawful disinformation.” In the event of noncompliance, he set a fine of R$ 500,000 per hour, in addition to the possibility of suspending the app for 72 hours. Forcing a company to publish that kind of retraction, on a mass scale, amounts to imposing an official version before any final ruling – which, in practice, is seen as prior censorship.<\/p>\n

5. Removal of ads by Google, Meta, Spotify, and Brasil Paralelo<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4781<\/p>\n

Date: May 2023<\/p>\n

Moraes ordered Google, Meta, Spotify, and Brasil Paralelo to remove, within one hour, all ads and texts calling PL 2630 the “Censorship Bill.” If they failed to comply, the fine would be R$ 150,000 per hour for each piece of content kept online. The measure ended up punishing companies for publicly taking a position on a bill that was still under discussion in Congress.<\/p>\n

6. Tax auditor investigated for criticism of the STF<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4781<\/p>\n

Date: March 2026<\/p>\n

A Federal Revenue auditor was summoned to testify as a target of investigation after posting criticism of the STF on social media. The episode became a symbol of how far the inquiry had expanded: public servants with no connection to the original targets began to be included solely because of opinions posted online.<\/p>\n

7. Silas Malafaia becomes a defendant over public statements<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4781<\/p>\n

Date: March 2026<\/p>\n

Pastor Silas Malafaia began answering as a defendant in the inquiry for statements deemed offensive toward Army generals. This raises doubts about whether the STF should judge a case involving people without privileged forum status and shows that the inquiry began advancing into conflicts with no direct relation to the court’s justices.<\/p>\n

Daniel Silveira<\/strong><\/h2>\n

8. Arrest of a congressman before approval by the Chamber<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4781<\/p>\n

Date: February 16, 2021<\/p>\n

Federal congressman Daniel Silveira was arrested after publishing a video attacking STF justices. The detention occurred before any deliberation by the Chamber of Deputies, which only confirmed the measure the next day, reversing the logic of parliamentary protection provided for in the Constitution.<\/p>\n

9. Conviction even without a request from the Public Prosecutor’s Office<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: Action derived from INQ 4781<\/p>\n

Date: April 2022<\/p>\n

Alexandre de Moraes sentenced Silveira to more than eight years in prison in a proceeding in which he acted as rapporteur, investigator, and judge – accumulating functions that violate the accusatory system. The sentence imposed exceeded even the expectations of the Office of the Prosecutor-General, which had sought conviction for crimes carrying less severe penalties.<\/p>\n

10. Presidential pardon struck down by the STF<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: Action derived from INQ 4781<\/p>\n

Date: 2022<\/p>\n

The STF annulled the pardon granted by Jair Bolsonaro to Silveira, in practice limiting the scope of a traditional prerogative of the president of the Republic.<\/p>\n

Roberto Jefferson<\/strong><\/p>\n

11. Arrest despite opposition from the Public Prosecutor’s Office<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4874<\/p>\n

Date: August 2021<\/p>\n

Former congressman Roberto Jefferson was arrested for social media posts considered radical, even though the Office of the Prosecutor-General had opposed the measure. Even so, the arrest was ordered.<\/p>\n

12. New arrest after house arrest was revoked<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: PET 9844<\/p>\n

Date: October 2022<\/p>\n

Jefferson was under house arrest for health reasons when Moraes revoked the benefit and ordered a new detention. The episode ended in an armed confrontation with the Federal Police. Even so, questions remained about the first arrest, decreed solely over posts, without violence.<\/p>\n

Anderson Torres and Ibaneis Rocha<\/strong><\/h2>\n

13. Governor removed from office<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Case: INQ 4879<\/p>\n

Date: January 8, 2023<\/p>\n

Ibaneis Rocha, governor of the Federal District, was removed from office right after the January 8 acts. Two years later, Moraes himself shelved the case for lack of evidence. The contradiction raised questions: if there were no indications, why remove him?<\/p>\n

14. Arrest of Anderson Torres without prior statement from the PGR<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4923<\/p>\n

Date: January 10, 2023<\/p>\n

Anderson Torres, Bolsonaro’s former justice minister and then the Federal District’s public security secretary, was arrested immediately after the acts. Months later, the inquiry against Ibaneis was shelved for lack of evidence, which weakened the original justification for the arrest.<\/p>\n

Mauro Cid<\/strong><\/h2>\n

15. Arrest in an entirely sealed proceeding<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: PET 10405 (sealed)<\/p>\n

Date: 2023<\/p>\n

Mauro Cid was arrested and later released in a secret proceeding. Because the case is under seal, it is not possible to know clearly the reasons for each decision.<\/p>\n

16. Plea deal with a light sentence<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: PET 10405 and derivatives<\/p>\n

Date: 2024\u20132025<\/p>\n

After entering into a plea deal, Cid received a light sentence. The defense challenged the calculation of the sentence, arguing that he had already spent more time under restrictions than the sentence itself.<\/p>\n

Protesters demonstrate against the government on January 8, 2023. (Foto: Jo\u00e9dson Alves\/Agencia Brasil)<\/i><\/p>\n

January 8: mass arrests and measures<\/strong><\/h2>\n

17. Buses seized without individual proceedings<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4921<\/p>\n

Date: January 8, 2023<\/p>\n

All the buses that brought protesters to Brasilia were seized, even without a specific investigation against the companies.<\/p>\n

18. Mass arrests without individual analysis<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4921 and derivatives<\/p>\n

Date: January 2023<\/p>\n

More than 900 people were kept in prison under generic decisions, without a detailed analysis of what each one had done.<\/p>\n

19. Arrest of the former commander of the Federal District Military Police<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4923<\/p>\n

Date: January 10, 2023<\/p>\n

Fabio Augusto Vieira was arrested on accusations of omission. Two justices disagreed, saying there was no proof of criminal intent.<\/p>\n

20. Death of a detainee who was awaiting a release decision<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: AP 1542 and related proceedings<\/p>\n

Date: 2023<\/p>\n

Cleriston Pereira da Cunha, known as “Clez\u00e3o,” died in prison after spending about 80 days detained even after the Office of the Prosecutor-General recommended his release. The request was not analyzed during that period.<\/p>\n

21. Businesspeople investigated for political support<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4874 and related proceedings<\/p>\n

Date: 2023<\/p>\n

Businesspeople began to be investigated as possible supporters of a coup, with secrecy protections lifted and searches carried out.<\/p>\n

22. Lawyers removed during trial<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: AP 2693<\/p>\n

Date: October 2025<\/p>\n

During a trial, the lawyers for Filipe Martins, a former adviser to Jair Bolsonaro, were removed from the defense in the middle of the session. This directly interfered with the defendant’s right to a defense.<\/p>\n

23. Ban on encampments at Pra\u00e7a dos Tr\u00eas Poderes<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4871<\/p>\n

Date: 2025<\/p>\n

Moraes banned protesters’ encampments in the Pra\u00e7a dos Tr\u00eas Poderes area in Brasilia. The measure restricted a place historically used for political demonstrations, and it came after Congressman H\u00e9lio Lopes (PL-RJ) tried to hold a silent protest in front of the STF.<\/p>\n

Former President Jair Bolsonaro arriving for testimony before the First Chamber of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) in June 2025. (Foto: Valter Campanato\/Ag\u00eancia Brasil)<\/i><\/p>\n

The trial of Jair Bolsonaro<\/strong><\/h2>\n

24. Accumulation of functions in the same proceeding<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: various<\/p>\n

Date: 2019\u20132026<\/p>\n

Alexandre de Moraes acted as rapporteur, as the justice responsible for investigations, and also as judge in cases related to the same facts.<\/p>\n

25. TSE and STF acting on the same investigated parties<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: AIJE 0600814-85.2022.6.00.0000; AIJE 0601002-78.2022.6.00.0000; INQ 4781 (STF); PET 10.543 (STF)<\/p>\n

Date: August 2021 \u2013 October 2023<\/p>\n

Cases involving Jair Bolsonaro moved forward at the same time in the TSE and the STF, with Alexandre de Moraes directly involved on both fronts. At the TSE, already under his presidency beginning in August 2022, actions such as the one dealing with the meeting with ambassadors in July of that year, and another about the September 7 acts, were analyzed during and after the election. At the same time, in the STF, Moraes was conducting the Fake News Inquiry, which investigated the same facts and people. In one of those proceedings, the TSE itself asked the STF to send evidence that was under Moraes’s reporting assignment, concentrating different stages of the same case in the same justice.<\/p>\n

26. Judge also as a possible victim<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: AIMP 165<\/p>\n

Date: 2024<\/p>\n

Bolsonaro’s defense asked for Moraes to be removed because he was a target of the alleged plot under investigation. The request was denied.<\/p>\n

27. Ban on visits by family members<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: EP 169<\/p>\n

Date: March 2026<\/p>\n

The justice prohibited Bolsonaro’s children from visiting him while he was under house arrest, a decision the defense considered excessive.<\/p>\n

Blocking of digital platforms<\/strong><\/h2>\n

28. Cutting off a channel’s revenue without a conviction<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4828<\/p>\n

Date: 2021\u20132022<\/p>\n

Moraes ordered the cutting off of the revenue sources (such as ads and subscriptions) of the right-wing channel Ter\u00e7a Livre before any conviction. The measure directly affected the project’s livelihood without a final court ruling.<\/p>\n

29. Blocking Telegram throughout the country<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: PET 9935<\/p>\n

Date: March 17, 2022<\/p>\n

Telegram was suspended throughout Brazil for failing to comply with court orders. The decision lasted less than a day, but it affected millions of users who had no connection to the case.<\/p>\n

30. Investigation against technology executives<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4933<\/p>\n

Date: 2023<\/p>\n

Executives from Google and Telegram came under investigation after criticizing PL 2630, placing companies under investigation for taking a position in a public debate.<\/p>\n

31. Blocking donations and online funding<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4781 and related proceedings<\/p>\n

Date: 2021\u20132023<\/p>\n

Profiles under investigation had their fundraising mechanisms suspended, even without a formal charge. Many were left without income and unable to defend themselves immediately.<\/p>\n

32. Total suspension of X (Twitter) in Brazil<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: PET 12404<\/p>\n

Date: August 30, 2024<\/p>\n

Claiming noncompliance with court orders, Moraes ordered the complete suspension of the platform in the country. More than 21 million ordinary users were affected. The network was unblocked only on October 8.<\/p>\n

33. Blocking Starlink’s accounts over another company’s debt<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: PET 12404<\/p>\n

Date: August 2024<\/p>\n

Accounts belonging to Starlink, a company owned by American billionaire Elon Musk, were blocked to guarantee payment of X’s fines, even though the companies are distinct. The measure hit a company that was not part of the proceeding.<\/p>\n

34. Fine for ordinary users for using a VPN<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: PET 12404<\/p>\n

Date: August 2024<\/p>\n

The decision provided for a daily fine for anyone who used a VPN to access X. The punishment affected users with no connection to the proceeding.<\/p>\n

35. Opening an inquiry to investigate Elon Musk<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4957<\/p>\n

Date: 2024<\/p>\n

Elon Musk became the target of an investigation after refusing to comply with court orders. The measure increased pressure on the company.<\/p>\n

36. Suspension of Rumble in Brazil<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: PET 9935<\/p>\n

Date: February 2025<\/p>\n

The video platform was blocked for failing to comply with court decisions, repeating the model used with Telegram.<\/p>\n

37. Proposal for a permanent body against “disinformation”<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: RE 1.037.396 and RE 1.057.258<\/p>\n

Date: June 2025<\/p>\n

Alexandre de Moraes supported the creation of a digital content monitoring structure with participation by the state and private companies, institutionalizing a control model that opens the door to censorship.<\/p>\n

38. Sealed decisions revealed by a U.S. commission<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: various<\/p>\n

Date: 2024\u20132026<\/p>\n

Reports from the U.S. Congress disclosed dozens of secret decisions involving content blocks and user data. The STF said they were all legal and well grounded.<\/p>\n

39. Orders to collect the data of Brazilians abroad<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: sealed proceedings<\/p>\n

Date: 2025\u20132026<\/p>\n

Companies were compelled to hand over data on Brazilian users, including those living outside the country, extending STF decisions beyond national territory.<\/p>\n

Journalists, critics, and activists<\/strong><\/h2>\n

40. Arrest of an activist for demonstrations<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4781<\/p>\n

Date: 2020<\/p>\n

Right-wing activist Sara Winter was arrested over acts and publications linked to protests against the STF.<\/p>\n

41. Arrests and flight of a journalist<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4781<\/p>\n

Date: 2020\u20132022<\/p>\n

Journalist Oswaldo Eust\u00e1quio was arrested and later left the country, alleging persecution.<\/p>\n

42. Blocking of a left-wing party<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: PET 10.391<\/p>\n

Date: June 2022<\/p>\n

Profiles belonging to the Workers’ Cause Party (PCO) were taken down after criticism of the STF, in a rare case of a measure against the left.<\/p>\n

43. Blocking Andr\u00e9 Valad\u00e3o’s profiles<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: PET 10.648<\/p>\n

Date: December 2022<\/p>\n

Pastor Andr\u00e9 Valad\u00e3o, leader of Lagoinha Baptist Church and a supporter of Jair Bolsonaro, had his social media profiles blocked by Moraes’s order. The content was predominantly religious, with no direct relation to the facts under investigation, which exposed the breadth of the criteria used to include targets in the inquiry.<\/p>\n

44. Censorship of Valad\u00e3o’s posts<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: PET 10.648<\/p>\n

Date: December 2022<\/p>\n

After having his profiles blocked, Pastor Andr\u00e9 Valad\u00e3o was also targeted by a new order requiring the removal of specific posts. The sequence – first the general block, then the removal of specific content – showed how the decisions could advance in stages within the same proceeding.<\/p>\n

45. Blocking the profiles of influencer B\u00e1rbara Destefani<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4879<\/p>\n

Date: January 2023<\/p>\n

B\u00e1rbara had her social media accounts suspended. She was not directly linked to the acts of vandalism under investigation, but she ended up included in the measures taken during that period.<\/p>\n

46. Cancellation of Rodrigo Constantino’s passport and blocking of his accounts<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4781<\/p>\n

Date: January 2023<\/p>\n

The journalist, who lives in the United States, had his passport canceled, his bank accounts blocked, and his profiles removed. Because the proceeding was under seal, he only learned of the measures when he tried to use the document to travel. Later, messages surfaced indicating that the orders may have been issued before a formal investigative report.<\/p>\n

47. Cancellation of Paulo Figueiredo’s passport and blocking of his accounts<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4781<\/p>\n

Date: January 2023<\/p>\n

The journalist faced similar measures: passport canceled, accounts blocked, and profiles removed. Everything occurred within a sealed proceeding, and the defense spent months without full access to the reasons for the decisions.<\/p>\n

48. Blocking journalist Guilherme Fiuza’s profiles<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4781<\/p>\n

Date: January 2023<\/p>\n

Fiuza had his social media accounts blocked. Internal messages from Moraes’s chambers indicated that the order to “block everything” may have been given even before a report on the case was formally completed.<\/p>\n

49. Suspension of OAC Brasil’s activities<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: PET 10.981<\/p>\n

Date: February 2023<\/p>\n

A single decision imposed three measures at the same time against the Order of Conservative Lawyers of Brazil: suspension of activities, blocking of social media, and removal of the website from the air. The entity had not previously been under investigation, which shows the broad reach of the measure.<\/p>\n

50. Censorship of PCO posts<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: PET 10.391<\/p>\n

Date: February 2023<\/p>\n

After having its profiles blocked, the Workers’ Cause Party was also ordered to remove specific posts. The appeals filed failed to reverse the decision.<\/p>\n

51. Blocking the profiles of prosecutor Marcelo Rocha Monteiro<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4781<\/p>\n

Date: November 2023<\/p>\n

Rocha Monteiro had his accounts blocked. A critic of STF decisions on public security in Rio de Janeiro, he was hit by a measure that, in practice, represses that kind of stance.<\/p>\n

52. Blocking the profiles of singer Davi Sacer<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4781<\/p>\n

Date: November 2023<\/p>\n

The gospel music artist had his profiles suspended. The measure affected a public figure with no direct political activity, extending the reach of the decisions beyond the political field.<\/p>\n

53. Blocking the profiles of Oswaldo Eust\u00e1quio’s daughter<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4781 Date: August 2024<\/p>\n

The journalist’s teenage daughter had her social media accounts blocked. The decision affected a minor who was not under investigation.<\/p>\n

54. Request for the extradition of Oswaldo Eust\u00e1quio<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4781<\/p>\n

Date: 2024<\/p>\n

Moraes requested the extradition of Eust\u00e1quio, who was in Spain after applying for asylum. The request was not accepted by the Spanish authorities.<\/p>\n

55. Blocking the profiles of R\u00e1dio RCN<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4954<\/p>\n

Date: January 2023<\/p>\n

The broadcaster from Aracaju, in the state of Sergipe, had its social media profiles blocked. The case extended the reach of the decisions to traditional media outlets.<\/p>\n

56. Calling in the Federal Police after an insult in Rome<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4940<\/p>\n

Date: 2024<\/p>\n

After being approached and insulted by a Brazilian in Rome, Moraes called in the Federal Police. He used the state apparatus in response to a personal conflict that occurred abroad, without the involvement of any serious crime. The “victim,” once again, was Moraes himself.<\/p>\n

Lawmakers: restrictions and investigations<\/strong><\/h2>\n

57. Blocking the profiles of Congressman Otoni de Paula<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4879<\/p>\n

Date: August 2022<\/p>\n

Otoni de Paula had his accounts suspended for allegedly attacking institutions, even though he was a federal congressman (which guarantees him immunity for any words he says).<\/p>\n

58. Blocking the profiles of Congressman Zucco<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: PET 10.685<\/p>\n

Date: December 2022<\/p>\n

Zucco had his social media profiles blocked by Moraes’s decision. The defense argued that, as a lawmaker, he had the right to express opinions without suffering that kind of restriction. The argument was not accepted.<\/p>\n

59. Blocking the profiles of state representative Homero Marchese<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4781<\/p>\n

Date: November 2022<\/p>\n

Paran\u00e1 state representative Homero Marchese had his social media accounts blocked. The measure reached a political figure without STF jurisdiction, extending the reach of the inquiry beyond its traditional competence.<\/p>\n

60. List of lawmakers informally investigated<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: various<\/p>\n

Date: 2022\u20132023<\/p>\n

Internal messages indicated that advisers connected to Alexandre de Moraes’s chambers monitored lawmakers’ profiles without the formal opening of an investigation. The guidance described in the conversations was to gather content, block accounts, and only afterward hear those involved.<\/p>\n

61. Blocking the profiles of Congressman Alan Rick<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4879 Date: January 2023<\/p>\n

Rick also had his social media accounts suspended. As in other cases, the defense invoked the protection afforded to lawmakers for their statements, but the measure was maintained.<\/p>\n

62. Blocking the profiles of Congressman Nikolas Ferreira<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4879<\/p>\n

Date: January 2023<\/p>\n

Nikolas had his profiles blocked shortly after the January 8 acts. The decision was later revised, but it directly affected a newly elected lawmaker and one of the most voted-for politicians in the country.<\/p>\n

63. Blocking the profiles of Senator Marcos do Val<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: PET 10.975<\/p>\n

Date: June 2023<\/p>\n

The senator had his social media accounts suspended, even after cooperating with investigations by the STF itself.<\/p>\n

64. Actions in the Carla Zambelli case<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: PET 0601843-73.2022.6.00.0000 (TSE); AIJE (TRE-SP); AP 2.428 (STF) Date: November 2022 \u2013 December 2025<\/p>\n

The Carla Zambelli case went through three different levels of jurisdiction. In 2022, already during Alexandre de Moraes’s tenure at the head of the TSE, the court ordered the takedown of profiles linked to the congresswoman on social media, in an action based on a report from the court’s internal anti-disinformation unit. Months later, the court itself restored access to the accounts, keeping only the restriction on content deemed irregular. The loss of her seat came in January 2025 by decision of the S\u00e3o Paulo regional electoral court. At the end of the year, the Chamber of Deputies tried to block the loss of her mandate, but the decision was annulled in the STF by Moraes on December 11, 2025, and confirmed by the First Panel the following day.<\/p>\n

65. Measures against Bolsonaro for acts by his son<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4995<\/p>\n

Date: July 2025<\/p>\n

Former president Jair Bolsonaro was targeted by precautionary measures related, in part, to actions by his son, Congressman Eduardo Bolsonaro. The decision linked responsibilities between legally independent persons.<\/p>\n

Interference in the Executive Branch<\/p>\n

66. Orders against Eduardo Bolsonaro cited by a U.S. commission<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: sealed proceedings<\/p>\n

Date: 2025<\/p>\n

A report by a U.S. House committee stated that Eduardo Bolsonaro was targeted by Brazilian court orders that included data collection and content restrictions even while he was outside the country. The document classified those measures as international in scope.<\/p>\n

67. Suspension of Alexandre Ramagem’s appointment to the Federal Police<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: MS 37.097<\/p>\n

Date: April 2020<\/p>\n

Hours before the swearing-in, Moraes suspended the appointment of Alexandre Ramagem to head the Federal Police. The decision blocked a direct act by then-president Jair Bolsonaro.<\/p>\n

68. Suspension of decrees on firearms<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: ADIs 6.134 and 6.675<\/p>\n

Date: 2021\u20132022 Federal government decrees that expanded access to firearms were suspended by Moraes’s decision. This directly interfered with a public policy defined by the Executive Branch.<\/p>\n

69. R$ 22.9 million fine against Bolsonaro’s coalition<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: Civil Petition 241 – TSE<\/p>\n

Date: November 2022<\/p>\n

As president of the TSE, Moraes imposed a multimillion-real fine on Jair Bolsonaro’s campaign after it questioned the electronic voting machines. The decision came only hours after the request.<\/p>\n

The “parallel office”<\/strong><\/h2>\n

70. Informal reports produced via WhatsApp<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4781 and others<\/p>\n

Date: 2022\u20132023<\/p>\n

Messages revealed by the press showed that advisers in Alexandre de Moraes’s chambers requested and received reports on profiles and social media content through informal WhatsApp conversations. Part of that material was produced by Eduardo Tagliaferro, who at the time was linked to the TSE’s anti-disinformation unit. According to the messages, the requests came directly from the chambers and did not follow an official procedure. Once ready, the reports were incorporated into the proceedings as if they were formal technical analyses. In internal conversations, Tagliaferro himself expressed concern about the procedure and the fact that the requests were being made outside institutional channels.<\/p>\n

71. Idea to hide the origin of requests from the chambers<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: internal conversations<\/p>\n

Date: 2022<\/p>\n

In the same messages, Moraes’s team discussed creating an anonymous email address to formalize requests from the chambers so they would look like outside complaints rather than internal orders.<\/p>\n

72. Operation against businesspeople with a report produced afterward<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: PET 10.543 Date: August 2022<\/p>\n

An operation against businesspeople was carried out before a complete formal report had been prepared; it was finished only after the action. In other words, the decision came before the official justification.<\/p>\n

73. Guidance to “find something” against Eduardo Bolsonaro<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: internal conversations<\/p>\n

Date: 2022<\/p>\n

Messages indicated that advisers sought to link Eduardo Bolsonaro to other investigated parties, starting from the hypothesis before the evidence. The chambers deny any irregularity.<\/p>\n

Former advisor to Moraes, Eduardo Tagliaferro, testified before the Senate’s Public Security Committee in 2025. (Foto: Saulo Cruz\/Ag\u00eancia Senado)<\/i><\/p>\n

74. Alignment between the chambers and the PGR<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: various<\/p>\n

Date: September 2025<\/p>\n

In testimony, Moraes’s former adviser Eduardo Tagliaferro<\/a> said there had been prior coordination between Moraes’s chambers and members of the Prosecutor’s Office regarding targets of investigation. The accusations were denied.<\/p>\n

75. Indictment of a former adviser after allegations<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4972<\/p>\n

Date: 2024\u20132025<\/p>\n

After reporting alleged irregularities, Tagliaferro was investigated and charged. He became the target of proceedings and left the country.<\/p>\n

76. Arrest of comedian Bismark Fugazza<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: sealed<\/p>\n

Date: 2022<\/p>\n

Fugazza was arrested for days after publishing content considered critical. Because the case is under seal, the full details of the decision are not public.<\/p>\n

77. Arrest of Filipe Martins amid inconsistencies<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: AP 2693 Date: 2023<\/p>\n

Filipe Martins’s defense pointed to errors in documents used to justify his arrest, such as incorrect data and questionable references.<\/p>\n

78. Sealed investigation of Judge Ludmila Grilo<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: sealed<\/p>\n

Date: 2022<\/p>\n

Judge Ludmila Lins Grilo, known for her criticism of the STF, was investigated and ended up leaving the country. The proceeding remains under seal, without full public details.<\/p>\n

79. Arrest of military personnel for online activity<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: PET 12.100<\/p>\n

Date: 2024<\/p>\n

Military personnel were arrested based on social media activity related to the investigation into an attempted coup. Part of the proceeding is under seal.<\/p>\n

Electoral censorship at the TSE<\/strong><\/h2>\n

80. Censorship of press outlets during the elections<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: TSE Resolution No. 23.714\/2022; RPs 06001386-41, 0601325-83, 0600557-60<\/p>\n

Date: October 2022<\/p>\n

During the 2022 campaign, already under Alexandre de Moraes’s presidency at the TSE, court decisions ordered the removal of content published by press outlets. On October 1, the website O Antagonista was forced to remove a report about an audio recording attributed to Marcola, the leader of the PCC, that mentioned support for Lula – and it ended up being fined when it republished the material. During the same period, Jovem Pan had an interview with then-senator Mara Gabrilli taken off the air after it mentioned the Celso Daniel case. Content linking Bolsonaro to cannibalism and Lula to drug trafficking was also targeted by decisions. The orders came through individual rulings during the election, based on rules edited on the eve of the runoff.<\/p>\n

81. Blocking a Brasil Paralelo documentary<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: AIJE 0601522-38.2022.6.00.0000 – TSE<\/p>\n

Date: October 2022<\/p>\n

A documentary by the conservative producer Brasil Paralelo, with content critical of the electoral process, was blocked before its release<\/a> – which constitutes prior censorship.<\/p>\n

82. Political content monitoring structure<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: TSE Ordinance No. 510\/2021; TSE Resolution No. 23.683\/2022<\/p>\n

Date: August 2021 \u2013 2023<\/p>\n

In March 2022, the TSE created the Special Advisory for Combating Disinformation (AEED), linked to a program aimed at fighting disinformation that had been instituted the previous year. The body began to monitor social media and produce reports on political content during the elections. Those documents served as the basis for court decisions, including the removal of posts and profiles. With Moraes at the head of the TSE, the structure gained greater prominence and came to directly feed the court’s decisions. It was not clear, however, what criteria were being used to monitor and classify that content.<\/p>\n

83. Fines and removals without clear criteria<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: TSE Resolution No. 23.714\/2022; ADI 7261 (STF)<\/p>\n

Date: October 20, 2022<\/p>\n

On the eve of the runoff, already under Alexandre de Moraes’s presidency, the TSE issued a resolution prohibiting the dissemination of content considered “knowingly untrue or gravely decontextualized,” without objectively defining what that meant. The same rule authorized the immediate removal of that content and established fines that could reach R$ 100,000 per hour in case of noncompliance. The rule was challenged by the Office of the Prosecutor-General before the STF on the grounds that it violated freedom of expression, but it was ultimately upheld by a majority of the justices.<\/p>\n

84. Removal of a critical video and a fine<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: 0600543-76.2022.6.00.0000 – TSE<\/p>\n

Date: July 2022<\/p>\n

The court ordered the removal of a video linking Lula and the PT to the PCC on the grounds that the content spread false information without proof. The decision also imposed a fine on anyone who circulated the video without complying with the order, directly affecting the circulation of political content during the campaign.<\/p>\n

85. Orders to streaming services, TV, and video platforms<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: Representation (TSE); RPs 06001386-41, 0601325-83, 0600557-60<\/p>\n

Date: October 2022<\/p>\n

On the eve of the 2022 runoff, when Alexandre de Moraes presided over the TSE, the court’s decisions began to affect not only social networks but also content distributed by video and streaming. One of the most emblematic cases was the removal of the documentary Who Ordered Jair Bolsonaro Killed?, by Brasil Paralelo, which was barred from being shown on any medium until after the election by decision of electoral inspector Benedito Gon\u00e7alves, confirmed by the other justices at the request of Lula’s campaign. During the same period, the court’s decisions also hit Jovem Pan’s programming, with the removal of interviews and political commentary aired on radio, TV, and YouTube. The orders extended the reach of the decisions beyond traditional social networks, also reaching video services and audiovisual distribution<\/p>\n

86. Mass removals of content<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: TSE Resolution No. 23.714\/2022<\/p>\n

Date: October 2022<\/p>\n

During the runoff, with the TSE presided over by Alexandre de Moraes, the court began to gather multiple publications into a single decision and order their removal in one block. In one ruling, 58 posts deemed problematic were identified, with an order to remove the 25 most serious ones. The contents were spread across different profiles and platforms, but they were targeted by a single decision with a short compliance deadline.<\/p>\n

87. Short deadlines and blocks across multiple platforms<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: TSE Resolution No. 23.714\/2022; PET 10.802 (STF)<\/p>\n

Date: October 2022 \u2013 January 2024<\/p>\n

Still under Alexandre de Moraes’s presidency at the TSE, the decisions began imposing short deadlines for taking down content, generally up to two hours – and they could fall to one hour in the days closest to the election. Noncompliance generated hourly fines. In later cases, such as the blocking of commentator Paulo Figueiredo’s profiles, court orders hit several platforms at once, including Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, Telegram, and Rumble, broadening the reach and speed of the measures.<\/p>\n

88. Blocking a news website<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: 0602041-13.2022.6.00.0000 – TSE<\/p>\n

Date: December 2022<\/p>\n

Besides removing content considered critical of Moraes, one decision ordered the blocking of the domain of the website Duna Press<\/em>, affecting the outlet’s entire publishing structure.<\/p>\n

The Monark case<\/strong><\/h2>\n

89. Removal of the YouTube channel<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: Civil Petition 241<\/p>\n

Date: November 1, 2022<\/p>\n

Moraes ordered the removal of YouTuber Bruno “Monark” Aiub’s channel even before any criminal charge. The defense classified it as prior censorship, since the space was blocked over future content, not judged acts.<\/p>\n

90. Blocking profiles on social media<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4879<\/p>\n

Date: January 11, 2023<\/p>\n

After the January 8 acts, Moraes ordered the removal of Monark’s profiles on all networks. The defense argued that he had not taken part in the vandalism and that the measure punished opinions, not crimes.<\/p>\n

91. Fine, blocking of accounts, and suspension of monetization<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4923<\/p>\n

Date: June 13, 2023<\/p>\n

Moraes imposed a R$ 300,000 fine, blocked bank accounts, and suspended monetization after Monark created new profiles. The defense argued that creating profiles is freedom of expression and that opinions are not crimes.<\/p>\n

92. STF upholds the blocks<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: INQ 4923<\/p>\n

Date: September 2024<\/p>\n

Platforms X and Discord appealed, but Moraes rejected the appeals and the STF’s First Panel unanimously upheld the decision. Monark had about 40 accounts blocked across 24 platforms, according to a survey by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee.<\/p>\n

Direct action in public policy<\/strong><\/h2>\n

93. Autonomy of states during the pandemic<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: ADPF 672<\/p>\n

Date: 2020<\/p>\n

Moraes ensured that states and municipalities could adopt their own measures against the pandemic, even against the guidance of Jair Bolsonaro’s government.<\/p>\n

94. Obligation to keep Covid-19 data available<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: ADPF 690<\/p>\n

Date: 2020<\/p>\n

Bolsonaro’s government was required to keep fully disclosing pandemic data after announcing changes in how that information would be released.<\/p>\n

95. Suspension of IPI tax reduction<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: ADIs 7.153 and 7.155<\/p>\n

Date: 2022<\/p>\n

Decrees that reduced taxes were partially suspended to protect the industry in the Manaus Free Trade Zone. It was a direct interference in the Union’s fiscal policy.<\/p>\n

96. Nursing pay floor with rules altered by the STF<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: ADI 7.222<\/p>\n

Date: 2022\u20132023<\/p>\n

The STF first suspended the national nursing pay floor approved by Congress for lack of a definition of how it would be funded. It later allowed implementation with changes: in the private sector, the amount came to depend on negotiation between employers and workers and could vary by region. Moraes followed that line. In practice, the decision changed a law that had already been approved by allowing the amount to cease being national and to vary according to local agreements.<\/p>\n

97. Ban on removing homeless people<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: ADPF 976<\/p>\n

Date: 2023<\/p>\n

Moraes prohibited the forced removal of homeless people and ordered the government to draw up a national plan on the subject. The decision meant that a single justice immediately set rules for the entire country on an urban policy issue – something that, in theory, should belong to elected governments and legislators.<\/p>\n

98. Vote to decriminalize marijuana<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: RE 635.659<\/p>\n

Date: 2023<\/p>\n

Alexandre de Moraes voted in favor of decriminalizing possession of marijuana for personal use, proposing objective quantity criteria. The decision amounted to an invasion of Congress’s authority in an area already defined by law. The judgment was not concluded.<\/p>\n

99. Suspension of a Federal Medical Council rule on abortion<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: ADPF 1141<\/p>\n

Date: 2024<\/p>\n

A resolution of the Federal Medical Council was suspended, allowing procedures that had been restricted by the rule. Jurists pointed out that Moraes interfered with the autonomy of a professional council and moved ahead of the STF itself by deciding alone on a subject that had not yet been definitively judged by the court.<\/p>\n

100. Enforcement of fines for highway blockades<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: ADPF 519<\/p>\n

Date: 2025<\/p>\n

Fines against truck drivers for road blockades after the elections were enforced based on an old action used in a new context.<\/p>\n

101. Intervention in a civil service exam with an accommodation for a candidate with dwarfism<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: RCL 91.550<\/p>\n

Date: 2026<\/p>\n

The justice ordered that a candidate with dwarfism retake a physical test with an accommodation after having been eliminated from a public exam. The STF went beyond what normally falls to the court by interfering directly in a state-level examination.<\/p>\n

102. Action in the Favelas ADPF after a police operation<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: ADPF 635<\/p>\n

Date: 2025<\/p>\n

After a police operation with more than 120 dead in Rio, Moraes temporarily took over the case and ordered evidence to be preserved while demanding explanations from the authorities. The ADPF is an action used in the STF to challenge acts of public authorities that may violate the Constitution. The episode revived the debate over how far the court had been directly interfering in the way the police operate in the state.<\/p>\n

IOF: when Moraes overrode Congress<\/h2>\n

103. Suspension of Congress’s decree<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: ADIs 7839 and 7827, ADC 96ib<\/p>\n

Date: July 2025<\/p>\n

In May 2025, Lula increased the Tax on Financial Transactions (IOF) for credit, foreign exchange, and insurance. Congress overturned the decree with 383 votes in the Chamber and unanimity in the Senate. Moraes, acting alone, suspended the Legislature’s decision and validated most of the presidential decree. In short: a single justice reversed a decision made by 594 elected lawmakers.<\/p>\n

104. Justice ignores the impasse and decides<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Case: ADIs 7839 and 7827, ADC 96<\/p>\n

Date: July 16, 2025<\/p>\n

One day before validating the decree on the IOF, Moraes presided over a conciliation hearing between the Executive and Legislative branches that ended without an agreement. The next day, he decided alone in favor of the government. The person who mediated the negotiation also decided the case.<\/p>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

At the most basic level of democracy, investigating, ordering precautionary measures, and judging are separate tasks. In Alexandre de Moraes’s…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":349523,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[204],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-349569","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-ultimas-noticias"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/villanews.com.br\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/349569","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/villanews.com.br\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/villanews.com.br\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/villanews.com.br\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/villanews.com.br\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=349569"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/villanews.com.br\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/349569\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/villanews.com.br\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/349523"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/villanews.com.br\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=349569"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/villanews.com.br\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=349569"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/villanews.com.br\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=349569"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}