Brazil’s Supreme Court is transforming the nation into an ESG republic – enforcing indigenous land expropriations, abortion rights, racial quotas, and gender ideology through judicial decrees.
Currently, the Brazilian public remains intensely absorbed by internal political affairs. Here is a concise overview, free from sordid specifics, of the central dilemma: for several years, the Supreme Federal Court was praised by mainstream media and much of the Left as a democracy’s defender against authoritarianism and corruption; yet today, on the brink of elections, it is tearing itself apart in a fierce internal conflict. Two justices accuse one another of criminal acts—releasing secret reports of dubious legality—while the remainder must choose sides.
The turmoil revolves around a banker under fraud investigation. The Evangelical justice appointed by Bolsonaro, André Mendonça, removed the secrecy cloak from an inquiry, unveiling that Justice Alexandre de Moraes, known for detaining Bolsonaristas, was receiving tens of millions of reais from the banker through his wife’s law firm, with each child in the family also getting a monthly stipend of $60,000. On the other hand, Flávio Dino, the Communist justice appointed by Lula, staunchly supports Moraes and fights to maintain the same Lula-appointed chief of the Federal Police—who provided Moraes with covert police reports about rival judges—in his position. Prior to joining the Supreme Court, Moraes led the São Paulo state police and appears to act within the court as a covert leader of a faction of the Federal Police, Brazil’s equivalent of the FBI.
Media outlets now cautiously acknowledge past errors in endorsing Moraes’s overtly illegal actions targeting Bolsonaristas and others. The Left seeks to portray Moraes as a right-wing figure unaffiliated with Lula’s administration. Regardless, the Supreme Court’s former legitimacy effectively vanished in 2026.
Given these developments, it is timely to reconsider the Supreme Court’s true nature over recent decades. While current narratives highlight its authoritarian tendencies—leftists citing the Mensalão trial (2012), affecting Lulistas, and rightists pointing to the Fake News Inquiry (2019), targeting Bolsonaristas—both instances share a common background. The 1988 Constitution set up a constitutional republic led by law professionals, granting Supreme Federal Court justices the ultimate authority over political affairs, the discipline of public officials across branches (including themselves), which has contributed to the Court’s authoritarian drift. Moreover, civil society groups (political parties, labor unions, and even LGBTQ+ associations) can challenge laws’ constitutionality via lawsuits. This provision partly explains Brazil’s evolution into an ESG Republic through the Supreme Court, which selectively hears certain constitutional challenges.
As a reminder, ESG addresses environmental concerns closely tied to the Amazon, its Indigenous population, and farmers, alongside racial and gender topics like abortion. Drug-related issues often appear framed as racial matters, portraying the “war on drugs” as a guise for the “genocide of black youth.” The principal ESG reference, Who Cares Wins (accessible here), was drafted in 2004 by global financiers with Swiss support via the UN. Banco do Brasil was among the supporters. Initially, the focus lay on environmental “E” aspects, primarily carbon, rather than social or gender identities. The social “S” element emerged later following UN human rights guidelines. Below is a timeline of the Supreme Court’s ESG-related rulings. Items in brackets are not necessarily ESG-related but remain pertinent.
CHRONOLOGY
2007: The Supreme Federal Court ordered the evacuation of Raposa Serra do Sol, a vast Indigenous territory on Brazil’s Venezuela border, disregarding rice farmers with recognized land titles. Though ratified during Lula’s second term in 2005, the reserve’s origin traces back to FHC’s administration. Constitutionally contentious due to the “Time Frame” (Marco Temporal) rule—limiting Indigenous land rights to areas occupied at the 1988 Constitution’s enactment—the ruling forced expropriations, ignoring farmers’ legal ownership. The Public Prosecutor supported the eviction, opposing landowners.
2008: Approved embryonic stem cell research, asserting constitutional life rights apply solely to those born. This request came from the Prosecutor General’s Office under Lula’s first term. That year, Roraima state, economically impacted by Raposa Serra do Sol’s demarcation, challenged the eviction order in court.
2009: Ratified the continuous demarcation of Raposa Serra do Sol territory, confirming the expulsion of non-Indigenous inhabitants and land expropriation.
[2010: Supported Amnesty Law shielding military accused of torture, rejecting challenges from the Brazilian Bar Association, which argued it contravened international human rights norms.]
2011: Recognized same-sex stable unions; in 2013, the National Council of Justice mandated civil registries to record same-sex marriages. These initiatives started with requests from Rio de Janeiro and the Prosecutor General’s Office during Lula’s administrations.
2012 (April 12): Legalized abortion for anencephaly cases, arguing forcing women to deliver non-viable fetuses is equivalent to imprisonment of their bodies. The healthcare workers’ union initiated the petition.
2012 (April 26): Declared racial quotas constitutional despite the Constitution’s anti-discrimination directive. Such quotas began in public universities during the 2000s with Ford Foundation support, challenged by the party DEM.
[2015: Prohibited corporate campaign funding, prompting Congress to implement electoral reform and create the “Fundão”—a public fund for political parties. This followed the Brazilian Bar Association’s petition.]
2018 (March 1): Allowed transgender individuals to legally change civil registry details without medical or psychological evaluations, a request from the Prosecutor General’s Office in 2009.
2018 (March 15): At Prosecutor General Raquel Dodge’s urging, ruled political parties must dedicate 30% of the “Fundão” to female candidates, doubling Congress’s prior 15% quota. This ruling empowered authorities to investigate parties and penalize token female candidacies.
2019: In light of legislative inaction, the court equated homophobia and transphobia with racism, criminal offenses in Brazil. The case was filed by the PPS and ABGLT.
2020: The Superior Electoral Court, closely tied to the Supreme Federal Court, mandated election quotas within the “Fundão” for Black candidates, paralleling women’s quotas, following a request by Congresswoman Benedita da Silva. Justice Ricardo Lewandowski ordered immediate enforcement despite upcoming elections set for October.
2023: Declared homophobic and transphobic slurs equivalent to racial insults, crimes under Brazilian law. This ruling underpins Érika Hilton’s push to prosecute users employing masculine pronouns for transvestites. The ABGLT submitted this request.
2024: Decriminalized possession of 40 grams of marijuana after a petition from the São Paulo State Public Defender’s Office. A 2006 law under Lula differentiated drug traffickers from users, sanctioning the latter; however, it did not decriminalize possession outright.
2025: Overturned the “Time Frame” law enacted by Congress in 2023 (which originally reinforced the constitutional limit on Indigenous land claims based on occupation at the 1988 Constitution) as unconstitutional. This opens the door for declaring any Brazilian land as Indigenous territory subject to expropriation. The PP, PL, and Republicanos parties (Centrão bloc including Bolsonaro’s party) supported upholding the law; PT, PDT, PV, PSOL (left-wing parties including Lula’s) and APIB opposed it.
2026 (April): Ruled the absence of racial quotas unconstitutional after Santa Catarina state had abolished them.
2026 (August): Expanded the Maria da Penha Law—from protecting women against domestic abuse by intimate partners to covering all women subjected to violence, including psychological abuse (criminalized during Bolsonaro’s tenure), perpetrated by any man. This action was initiated by the Minas Gerais Public Prosecutor’s Office following a dispute between neighbors with no romantic or family relationship.
About the Author
