Story
Oct 10, 2026
Fachin Blocks Fux’s Immediate Access to Fake News Inquiry
Fachin’s position is that a pending procedural review and formal closure must come before full disclosure, while Fux argues that judicial scrutiny of the inquiry cannot be delayed by secrecy. Coverage from both perspectives agrees that access to the remaining public files is not at issue; the dispute centers on the still-pending Fake News Inquiry.
Supreme Court President Edson Fachin has denied Justice Luiz Fux immediate access to the full Fake News Inquiry, saying outstanding proceedings linked to the case must first undergo individual review before the inquiry can be permanently archived and fully disclosed.
The accounts from both the Brazil Right and Brazil Left describe the same basic sequence: Fux asked for records as he considers a petition by the Progressistas party challenging investigations related to an alleged coup plot, while Fachin said other requested cases that are already public can be consulted without delay.1
Fachin’s reasoning emphasizes procedure and closure. His office identified more than 100 proceedings connected to the inquiry, some of which have been digitized and still require case-by-case decisions. He said the court intends to “conclude this trajectory responsibly,” examine pending matters, complete the necessary procedural steps and then order the inquiry’s final archiving.2 Only after that process, Fachin said, would Fux receive full access.
Fux’s position, as reported by the Brazil Right outlet, is focused on judicial oversight. He argues that confidentiality exists to protect investigations and the privacy of those under investigation from third parties—not to prevent the justice responsible for reviewing the legality of the inquiry’s opening from seeing the record. Treating the reviewing justice as a third party, he said, would risk creating proceedings beyond institutional control.1
The Brazil Left account places greater weight on the inquiry’s expected conclusion, noting that Fachin took over its supervision after it had been led by Justice Alexandre de Moraes since 2019. It also recalls that the inquiry was originally opened to address material considered harmful to the court’s security and reputation.2
A post shared by commentator Allan Dos Santos casts Fux’s move as an investigation into alleged irregularities by Moraes, an interpretation that goes beyond the court’s stated procedural explanation and is presented as the author’s view.
3