Justice Alexandre de Moraes, of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), sanctioned under the Magnitsky Act for human rights violations, continues to act and has declared the final judgment (trânsito em julgado) of Jair Bolsonaro’s conviction for an attempted coup d’état that did not occur. He ordered the immediate enforcement of the sentence of 27 years and 3 months in prison under a closed regime, on Tuesday, November 25, 2025.
According to jurists, this represents a “funereal moment for the Brazilian Constitution.”
What happened
The conviction was decided by the First Panel of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), composed of only 5 justices. The majority were appointed by Lula.
The vote was 4 to 1: Moraes, Cármen Lúcia, Cristiano Zanin, and Flávio Dino voted for conviction; Luiz Fux dissented.
This means that Bolsonaro was convicted with only 4 votes out of a total of 11 justices of the Supreme Court.
The point raised by Fux
Fux argued that, under the Constitution (Article 102), a case of such relevance — a criminal action against a former President of the Republic — could not be judged by a Panel, but rather by the Full Court (Plenary).
If the trial had taken place in the Plenary and there had been a dissenting vote, embargos infringentes would have been applicable, a type of appeal that could reopen the discussion.
Bolsonaro’s defense reinforced this argument, claiming that there was a denial of the right to a full defense.
Fux’s view: More aligned with the constitutional text and the tradition that the Full Court (Plenary) judges presidents.
Majority’s view: More pragmatic, based on the internal rules and jurisprudence that assign cases to Panels in order to expedite proceedings.
Practical outcome: The majority prevailed, but Fux’s criticism exposes unconstitutionality or, at the very least, a violation of due process.
This is another fundamental point raised by Luiz Fux, reinforcing the criticism of how Moraes conducted the case. Let’s break it down:
Fux’s argument on privileged jurisdiction (foro privilegiado):
- Privileged jurisdiction (Article 102 of the Constitution): The Constitution establishes that the Supreme Federal Court (STF) judges authorities holding current office, such as the President of the Republic, ministers of state, deputies, and senators.
- Bolsonaro’s situation: As a former president, Bolsonaro no longer holds privileged jurisdiction.
- Comparison with Lula: Fux emphasized that Lula, after leaving the presidency, was tried in the first instance (the Lava Jato case in Curitiba). Therefore, Bolsonaro should have been prosecuted in the same way, beginning in the Federal Court of first instance.
Moraes’ Legal Error
Improper jurisdiction of the STF: By keeping the case against Bolsonaro in the Supreme Federal Court (STF), Moraes contradicted the understanding that former presidents do not have privileged jurisdiction (foro privilegiado). This violates the principle of equality before the law (isonomia) and creates unequal treatment compared to other former presidents — including Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who was convicted in three instances and, according to JurBrasil, had the right to more than 400 appeals throughout his case.
Violation of due process of law: Trying the case directly in the STF eliminates the normal appellate stages of the first and second instances. This restricts the right to defense and artificially accelerates the conviction.
Dangerous precedent: If former presidents are judged directly in the STF without privileged jurisdiction, it sets a precedent of procedural exception, weakening the coherence of the legal system.
Fux’s statement based on the Constitution:
Fux asserted that Bolsonaro does not have privileged jurisdiction (foro privilegiado) and should have been tried in the first instance, just as Lula was.
Moraes ignored this point, kept the case in the Supreme Federal Court (STF), and further restricted appeals (such as embargos infringentes).
This reinforces the argument that there was a violation of the Constitution, due process of law, and equal treatment among defendants.
What Moraes did
Moraes declared the case as final (trânsito em julgado), ruling that no further appeals were possible beyond the motions for clarification (embargos de declaração) that had already been rejected. By doing so, he denied the possibility of embargos infringentes, thereby consolidating the conviction more quickly. The majority’s decision ignored the constitutional argument raised by Fux and Bolsonaro’s defense, relying solely on internal rules and precedents that expanded the authority of the Panels to act individually.
Some of the legal errors pointed out in Bolsonaro’s conviction
Violation of constitutional jurisdiction (Article 102 of the Constitution): The Constitution establishes that criminal actions against a president or former president of the Republic must be judged by the Full Court (Plenary) of the Supreme Federal Court (STF). Moraes kept the trial within the Panel, contradicting this rule and reducing the collegiality from 11 justices to only 5.
Denial of embargos infringentes: The Internal Rules of the STF provide for embargos infringentes in non-unanimous Plenary decisions. Since there was a dissenting vote (Luiz Fux), if the trial had been held in the Plenary, this appeal would have been possible. Moraes declared the case final (trânsito em julgado) and prevented the defense from appealing, amounting to a restriction of the right to defense.
Supremacy of the Constitution ignored: The defense invoked the principle that the Constitution stands above internal rules. Moraes and the other justices of the Panel ignored this argument, relying only on regimental interpretation. This violates the principle of normative hierarchy, since internal rules cannot override the constitutional text.
Violation of due process of law (Article 5, LIV and LV of the Constitution): By denying a legitimate appeal and restricting the trial to only 5 justices, Moraes compromised the right to full defense and adversarial proceedings. The decision artificially accelerated the process, disregarding fundamental guarantees.
