Justice Gilmar Mendes is pressing Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court to pause proceedings connected to Banco Master until it determines whether any judges cited in the underlying material should be barred from taking part. His central argument is procedural: moving ahead now, he says, would mean “deciding before knowing who decides.”¹

Mendes has proposed combining two related cases, assigning them to a new rapporteur by lottery, identifying members of the judiciary mentioned in the inquiry and allowing those individuals to respond before the court resumes. In his framing, being named in messages or documents is not proof of wrongdoing; the immediate question is whether any connection creates a possible conflict or grounds for recusal.¹

The proposal follows Justice Flávio Dino’s request for more time to examine whether an investigation should be opened into Justice Alexandre de Moraes. Mendes says the court should first clarify the status of all potentially affected members, including Kassio Nunes Marques, whose possible links were raised in messages related to Banco Master. Mendes explicitly says the material does not establish misconduct by Nunes Marques, but argues it warrants clarification before he votes in related cases.²

Mendes’s filing also broadens the dispute by accusing Justice André Mendonça of an “unequivocal political-electoral bias” in ordering investigative steps and lifting secrecy around a Federal Police report before plenary consideration.² He alleges Mendonça sought to “play with chaos” and place the court under public pressure—claims that reflect Mendes’s interpretation of the handling of the case, rather than a judicial finding.²

Outside the court, the dispute has also drawn openly political commentary. Commentator Rodrigo Constantino wrote that Dino was “converting even the vote of a neutral tucano,” echoing wider criticism of Dino’s intervention from the political right.Rodrigo Constantino (Rconstantino)³ The court has yet to decide whether to adopt Mendes’s proposed sequence.