Story
Oct 11, 2026
Threats Against Dino Put Court Security and Judicial Independence in Focus
Accounts across Brazil’s political spectrum agree that threats directed at Justice Flávio Dino warrant a police response. They differ chiefly in emphasis: Dino and left-leaning coverage link the messages to disinformation and pressure on judges, while right-leaning reports focus on the Court’s security procedures and the broader pattern of threats against public institutions.
Supreme Court President Edson Fachin ordered the Federal Police to assess and investigate threats against Justice Flávio Dino after the Court’s security office identified messages advocating violence, including killing and attacks on Supreme Court members. The Court said a technical security assessment had been sent to federal police for action within its remit.1
Dino, who published excerpts from the Court’s security report, said it contained “thousands of messages” threatening murder and other attacks. He argued that the hostility was not merely disagreement with rulings, but the result of falsehoods repeated to provoke violence. “If people do not agree with judicial decisions, they can appeal to the competent panels,” he said. “There is no need to kill the judge who made the decision.”2
That account places the episode in a wider concern about whether personal intimidation can erode judicial independence. Dino said he would not change his work because of the messages, warning that a judge who fears personal persecution cannot freely perform the role.2
Right-leaning coverage similarly reported the threats and Fachin’s response, but gave greater attention to the operational measures taken by the Court. It cited messages referring to shooting Dino, invading the Supreme Court and publicly humiliating justices, while noting that the Court remains in contact with responsible security agencies.1
It also highlighted possible context around Dino’s past role in firearms policy: as justice minister, he helped implement measures restricting gun access and requiring weapons to be re-registered.3 Another report situated the case alongside threats against election-justice staff, for whom the electoral court had arranged security and psychological support after more than 30,000 hostile messages and attacks were recorded.3
Together, the accounts converge on the need for a law-enforcement response, while differing over whether the central lesson is the effect of misinformation on democratic institutions or the immediate challenge of protecting officials facing escalating online threats.