Brazil's Supreme Court moves forward with analysis of National Council of Justice (CNJ) rules on judicial conduct on social media.
The court is evaluating lawsuits that question the limits on judges' actions on digital platforms.
247 - The Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) has resumed the trial of two cases that discuss the parameters established for the conduct of judges on social media. The debate involves the validity of rules that guide the public behavior of judges in digital environments and their impact on constitutional principles, such as freedom of expression and the impartiality of the judiciary.
The actions analyzed are Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality (ADIs) 6293 and 6310, filed by the Brazilian Association of Magistrates (AMB) and the Association of Federal Judges of Brazil (Ajufe) against Resolution 305/2019 of the National Council of Justice (CNJ).
Trial discusses the role of judges in the digital environment.
The resolution in question establishes, among other guidelines, a prohibition on social media posts that could reveal partisan political activity by judges. The text also recommends caution in sharing content whose veracity has not been proven, with the aim of preserving public trust in the impartiality of the judiciary.
The trial began in 2022 in the virtual plenary of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), but was transferred to the in-person plenary after a request for a hearing by Justice Nunes Marques. In the most recent session, the votes of the rapporteur, Justice Alexandre de Moraes, and Justices Nunes Marques, Cristiano Zanin, and André Mendonça were delivered.
Organizations question sanctions and freedom of expression.
In his oral argument, AMB's lawyer, Alberto Pavie Ribeiro, stated that the CNJ resolution created conduct subject to disciplinary sanctions that are not foreseen in the Statute of the Judiciary. According to him, the rule goes beyond Article 95 of the Federal Constitution. "The constitutional prohibition is linked to the verb 'to dedicate oneself,' which could never be compared to simply expressing an opinion," he declared.
Ajufe also challenged the rule. According to lawyer Luciano de Souza Godoi, the CNJ (National Council of Justice) overstepped constitutional limits by restricting fundamental rights. He argues that the resolution affects the freedom of thought and expression guaranteed by Article 5 of the Constitution.
The rapporteur defends ethical parameters already established by legislation.
The rapporteur for the cases, Minister Alexandre de Moraes, voted to dismiss the requests. According to him, the resolution does not create new sanctions or functional duties, but only clarifies rules already provided for in the Federal Constitution and the Statute of the Judiciary. "The resolution does not provide for any form of punishment or penalty," he stated.
Moraes emphasized that the rule seeks to prevent conduct that could demonstrate partisan political activity by magistrates, preserving public trust in the Judiciary. He also stressed that the rules apply only to public statements on social media, not extending to private interactions not intended for the general public.
The trial is suspended and awaits new votes.
The rapporteur's vote was fully supported by Ministers Nunes Marques, André Mendonça, and Cristiano Zanin. Minister Rosa Weber, now retired, had voted in the same direction when the case was being heard in the virtual plenary session, which is why Minister Flávio Dino is not participating in the judgment.
The analysis of the case was suspended by the president of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), Minister Edson Fachin, to await the vote of Minister Luiz Fux, who is absent due to health reasons. The votes of Minister Cármen Lúcia, Minister Dias Toffoli, Minister Gilmar Mendes, and the president of the Court himself are still pending.
