Taming the Brazilian Supreme Court
The recent Proposal for Constitutional Amendment No. 28/2024 weakens constitutional review by allowing Congress to suspend certain decisions of the Supreme Federal Court. This article identifies several exaggerated and premature criticisms present in the public debate. Additionally, it explores how models of weak judicial review, successfully integrated by numerous established democracies, may foster constitutional dialogues and collaboration, potentially reducing counter-majoritarian frictions and enhancing democratic principles.
Continue reading >>
Legislating Reproductive Rights
In May, the Brazilian parliament introduced a bill that included a gestational age limit for performing abortions, even in cases where the pregnancy resulted from rape. In practice, the bill would criminalize women who were victims of sexual violence, especially young girls. The proposal triggered a strong reaction from civil society, which ultimately prompted parliament to withdraw the bill. The case illustrates how the Brazilian parliament has become a dangerous place for women’s sexual and reproductive rights – a situation that has worsened due to an institutional dispute between the parliament and the constitutional court.
Continue reading >>
Story of a Death Foretold
On 30 August 2024, the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes suspended X (former Twitter) in Brazil. The decision follows a critical deterioration of the relationship between Elon Musk and Brazilian authorities, which became confrontational in April and hit an all-time high point of contention when the tech billionaire closed X's Brazilian office in mid-August. While Musk's attitude towards the Brazilian rule of law can be defined as delinquent, entitled, and anarchist, the Supreme Court’s decision to ban the platform in the country and establish hefty fines for any Brazilian attempting to use a VPN to access it is also controversial. Within the complexity of democratic erosion and digital policy in Brazil, the judicial expansion of power vis-à-vis the struggle against disinformation has been observed at least in the last five years, and the lack of a general legal framework regulating digital platforms supports these immediate but many times inefficient and legitimacy eroding measures.
Continue reading >>