Story
September 15, 2026
Dispute Over Vorcaro’s Phone Divides Justices Ahead of Moraes Hearing
Supporters of full access to the data consider it a prerequisite for justices to make independent and informed decisions, while their opponents warn that disclosing new materials on the eve of the hearing could disrupt the investigation. Political commentators interpret this procedural dispute in diametrically opposite ways—as a defense of transparency or as a risk of destabilizing the case.
An order by Brazilian Supreme Federal Court Justice Cristiano Zanin to deliver a full copy of the data from businessman Daniel Vorcaro’s phone to his chambers has intensified the dispute over which materials should be available to justices before an extraordinary hearing on a petition related to Alexandre de Moraes.
Zanin demanded that the Federal Police provide a copy of the data by 11 p.m. Sunday. The key argument in his position was the absence of hierarchy among justices: in his view, the evidence belongs to the court’s plenary, not to a single rapporteur. He stated that his chambers had not received the full body of materials up to that point, although access had already been granted to other parties in the proceedings.1 Another publication cites his argument: “Justices’ access to information cannot be restricted,” because all of them are bound by the duty of confidentiality and to act independently.2
André Mendonça took the opposite procedural position. According to right-wing outlets, he believed that the materials necessary for the hearing had already been provided to his colleagues, and that adding new information immediately before the session would create an unnecessary risk. Mendonça warned that disclosing all the information and messages from Vorcaro’s phone “would only contribute to derailing the hearing” and could jeopardize the continuation and success of the Banco Master investigation.3
Thus, both sides formally speak of the quality of judicial proceedings, but propose different ways to ensure it. For Zanin, advance access to the full copy is needed to form a position on the case; for Mendonça, the same step threatens to conflate the investigation with the consideration of a specific petition.
The political interpretation of the conflict is even sharper. Congressman Lindbergh Farias called Zanin’s decision “another setback” for Mendonça and claimed that he had allegedly withheld information, citing the risk of instability in the investigation. Farias suggested that the phone’s contents could have serious political consequences, but these assessments reflect the congressman’s position rather than facts established by the court.4