Supreme Court President Edson Fachin is advocating for a formal code of conduct for the court's justices to restore public confidence [1].
The move comes as the court faces significant institutional pressure and internal conflict. Establishing a set of ethical guidelines is intended to safeguard the impartiality of the judiciary during a period of heightened tension with the legislative branch, and public scrutiny over institutional crises [1, 3].
Fachin made public statements regarding the necessity of the code on April 19, 2026 [2]. He continued discussions with other ministers on April 20, 2026, pausing his vacation to address the crisis in Brasília [4]. These efforts are specifically aimed at addressing the fallout from the Banco Master scandal and recent reports from a Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (CPI) [1, 3].
"The impartiality is the prerequisite for public trust," Fachin said [1].
Despite the push for reform, the initiative has met with internal resistance. Some ministers have expressed opposition to the proposed guidelines, leading Fachin to emphasize a collaborative approach. "Dialogue will be the compass for the creation of a judicial ethics code," Fachin said [2].
However, the proposal has sparked a rift within the court. Justice Gilmar Mendes criticized Fachin's leadership, suggesting that the focus on the ethics code has come at the expense of the court's primary duties. Mendes said the number of important processes paralyzed by Fachin's initiative is impressive [5].
This internal clash highlights a contradiction between the pursuit of institutional transparency and the efficiency of the court's legal output. While Fachin views the code as a tool for restoration, critics within the STF view his current approach as a source of further internal instability [1, 5].
“"The impartiality is the prerequisite for public trust."”
The push for an ethics code represents an attempt to formalize judicial behavior in Brazil to mitigate political volatility. However, the friction between Fachin and Mendes indicates that the STF is currently divided between a desire for structural reform and a priority on maintaining the pace of legal adjudication, suggesting that any resulting code may be a product of compromise rather than consensus.
