Story
September 15, 2026
Fachin Took Over the Petitions on Moraes, but the Dispute Over Control of the Investigations Remained
All sides link Edson Fachin's decision to preparations for a sensitive STF plenary session, but interpret its scope differently. Some speak of an effective suspension and a transfer of control to the court's chief justice, while others stress that it concerns only the petitions, not a change of rapporteur in investigations already opened.
The president of Brazil's Federal Supreme Court (STF), Edson Fachin, took over as rapporteur for proceedings concerning the alleged ties between Justice Alexandre de Moraes and former banker Daniel Vorcaro. The matter had previously been assigned to Justice André Mendonça. The decision was made on the eve of a plenary session at which the court is to discuss Federal Police materials and decide whether to authorize an investigation into Moraes.1
In the interpretation of left-wing Brazilian sources, this is not merely a change of rapporteur in the Moraes matter: Fachin also ordered the records in the Master case and the investigation into fraud involving INSS payments transferred to the presidency. Until the chief justice's next decision, these proceedings are said to be effectively suspended. The source also notes that some justices close to Moraes's position considered Mendonça's actions procedurally improper, since the review of a colleague began without a prior plenary decision. According to these reports, the Attorney General's Office recommended voiding the police report.1
Sources on the right confirm the key facts: Fachin asked the police within 24 hours for information on the whereabouts and status of materials extracted from Vorcaro's phone; several justices requested full access to those data. Mendonça stated that he has only an unopened backup copy, while the original remains with the police.2
However, right-wing reports dispute the conclusion that Mendonça has definitively been stripped of the Master and INSS cases. Lawyer André Tersarolli explained that Fachin took oversight of “only the petitions themselves,” while Mendonça “remains the rapporteur” for the investigations.3 The petitions may be dismissed, become the basis for a new investigation, or be joined to an existing proceeding; the plenary must determine the final course.
Thus, the divergence primarily concerns the consequences of the decision. One interpretation sees it as a concentration of cases in the STF presidency, while the other sees it as a mechanism for easing tensions and preventing possible challenges to impartiality. At the same time, both agree: the fate of the most sensitive materials now depends on a collective decision by the court.4