Fachin denies Fux access to the fake news inquiry.
The judge highlighted that several parts of the case are under seal and that some of the material is still to be evaluated
. Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Edson Fachin denied, this Friday (09), a request from Justice Luiz Fux to access the files of the fake news inquiry.
The investigation was opened in 2019 and until then was under the responsibility of Justice Alexandre de Moraes.
However, last month, Fachin took over the responsibility for the presidency of the Court.
ORIGINAL REQUEST
Analyze this and search for other news reports about the “END OF THE WORLD INQUIRY.”
Fachin denies Fux access to the fake news inquiry.
The judge highlighted that several parts of the case are under seal and that some of the material is still to be evaluated.
Source: Correio Braziliense
Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Edson Fachin denied, this Friday (09), a request from Justice Luiz Fux to access the files of the fake tnews inquiry.
The investigation was opened in 2019 and until then was under the responsibility of Justice Alexandre de Moraes.
However, last month, Fachin took over the responsibility for the presidency of the Court.
In his request, Fux stated that since the lawyers and parties had access to the case files, the members of the plenary should also have access, and he ordered the Supreme Court's technical area to send the files to his office.
However, Fachin pointed out that when he assumed the role of rapporteur for the case, the investigation was under judicial secrecy and that this status has not been changed.
"As can be seen from the information procedural, with the exception of Inquiry 4.781, all other proceedings are public, and there is no impediment to the Minister having immediate access to the information contained therein. Regarding Inquiry 4.781, it should be clarified that, since September 9, 2026, the case has been under the responsibility of the Presidency, in accordance with Ordinance No. 189. When the case was sent, it was still being processed under secrecy, assigned by the Minister designated to instruct the proceedings," wrote Fachin.
The minister highlighted that some of the material in the inquiry still needs to be evaluated.
"Since the presidency received these documents, an analysis phase of the files and related procedures has begun. The survey identified 104 procedures linked to the inquiry, including petitions and other preliminary investigation procedures that were assigned to it. Part of this material underwent a digitization and organization process, which requires individualized examination of the files and their content to determine the appropriate next steps," he added.
Read also - Alckmin defends judicial reform 'to have legal certainty'
Fachin emphasized that the process remains confidential, but that Fux and other magistrates will have access when necessary for the collegiate body to analyze the case.
"The change does not alter the acts regularly performed up to September 9th, which remain valid, including the assignment of confidentiality. It also does not affect criminal proceedings in which the indictment has already been accepted. Under the current Presidency, the intention is to responsibly conclude this process, examining the still pending procedures and, once the necessary procedural steps have been completed, to promote the definitive archiving of the investigation, thus guaranteeing the full publicity of all acts and the full access that Minister Luiz Fux desires," concluded the Supreme Court president's decision.
Original source:
https://www.correiobraziliense.com.br/politica/2026/10/7518412-fachin-nega-acesso-de-fux-ao-inquerito-das-fake-news.html
CHATGPT'S RESPONSE
Thought for 1 minute 22 seconds
THE “END OF THE WORLD INQUIRY”: FACHIN DENIES FUX ACCESS TO THE STF'S SEALED CASE FILES — WHO CONTROLS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE SUPREME COURT'S OWN ACTS?
Legal, Constitutional, and Journalistic Analysis
Research updated on October 9, 2026
I researched the news report published by Correio Braziliense and found reports from Folha de S.Paulo, CNN Brasil, Poder360, Agência Brasil, Deutsche Welle, UOL, and Reuters , as well as official documents from the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF).
I also found a particularly important document: the full text of Luiz Fux's decision of October 8, 2026, consisting of 14 pages, issued in ADPF 1,144.
This document makes it to analyze the controversy with much greater precision than merely examining the headline about Fachin's refusal.
The main legal question is not simply whether an inquiry may proceed under judicial secrecy.
It is whether the secrecy of an inquiry may prevent another Supreme Court Justice, in the exercise of his own jurisdictional authority, from examining the constitutionality of the acts carried out in that proceeding.
This distinction is fundamental.
And there is a second relevant element: Edson Fachin himself was the rapporteur in ADPF 572, decided in 2020, which recognized the constitutionality of the initiation of Inquiry 4,781 but established limits on its conduct.
Fux's decision now returns precisely to those limits.
1. WHAT HAPPENED ON OCTOBER 8 AND 9, 2026
On October 8, Luiz Fux ordered the STF's Judicial Secretariat to provide its chambers with full access to four proceedings:
| Proceeding | Subject |
|---|---|
| Inquiry 4,781 | The fake news inquiry |
| Inquiry 4,874 | The digital militias inquiry |
| Petition 10,405 | Investigation related to false vaccination records |
| Petition 12,100 | Proceeding related to Operation Tempus Veritatis |
Fux established a 48-hour deadline for electronic access to the documents, encompassing volumes, attachments, attached case files, media, decisions, and records relating to the distribution and prior assignment of the proceedings.
The order was issued in ADPF 1,144, filed by the Progressistas Party in April 2024.
In that action, the party challenges acts that gave rise to Petition 12,100 and alleges possible violations of the right to a natural judge, the accusatory system, and the Supreme Court's rules of jurisdiction.
Fux did not declare the proceedings illegal.
He ordered access to the documentation so that he could examine the allegations and issue a reasoned decision.
The full text of his decision expressly confirms that the merits have not yet been awarded.
Fachin's Response
On October 9, Edson Fachin informed that three of the proceedings could be consulted, but that Inquiry 4,781 would remain, for the time being, under seal.
According to the news reports, Fachin justified the restriction by stating that the Presidency had identified 104 proceedings linked to the inquiry , including petitions and preliminary investigations that would require individualized examination.
He also stated that he intends to conclude the investigation and bring about its definitive closure and archiving, at which point broad public access would be ensured.
However, this response raises a question:
If the investigation is being organized for eventual closure, does that prevent a Justice with jurisdictional authority to examine its constitutionality from having confidential access to the documents?
Public disclosure to society as a whole and institutional access by a competent judge are legally different matters.
2. I FOUND OTHER IMPORTANT NEWS REPORTS
The reports help reconstruct the sequence of events and the different interpretations of the controversy.
News Reports of October 9, 2026
1. Folha de S.Paulo — Fachin Denies Fux Immediate Access and Indicates Definitive Closure of the Fake News Inquiry
The report highlights that the Presidency intends to examine the pending proceedings before concluding the investigation.
It also records the change of rapporteur that occurred in September 2026.
Read the Folha de S.Paulo report
2. CNN Brasil — Fachin Denies Luiz Fux Immediate Access to the Full Fake News Inquiry
The report by Teo Cury states that Fachin sent an official letter to his colleague explaining that the material was still under review.
According to CNN, the Presidency was examining which proceedings already contained sufficient evidentiary material and which required additional investigative steps.
3. Poder360 — Fachin Denies Fux Access to the Fake News Inquiry at the STF
This report is particularly useful because it makes Fux's complete decision available and details the legal issues involved in ADPF 1,144.
The newspaper also places the controversy in the context of recent events involving members of the STF and the Federal Police.
4. Agência Brasil — STF: Fachin Says He Intends to Close the Fake News Inquiry
Agência Brasil presents the prospect of the investigation's possible conclusion.
There is a numerical discrepancy that deserves to be recorded: the report mentions 108 linked proceedings, whereas the order reproduced by Correio Braziliense and other news outlets mentions 104.
The number 104 is the one appearing in Fachin's statement as transcribed by the press.
The discrepancy with Agência Brasil would still need to be clarified through documentary evidence.
Read the Agência Brasil report
5. Folha de S.Paulo — Fux Tightened Scrutiny of Moraes's Acts in the Coup Plot After Becoming Upset Over a Meeting Between the Justice and the Head of the Federal Police
This report adds information about the context of institutional relations between Supreme Court Justices and the leadership of the Federal Police.
Folha reports tensions associated with a meeting between Alexandre de Moraes and the Federal Police Director-General, Andrei Rodrigues.
These events provide journalistic context but do not replace examination of the procedural grounds formally presented in ADPF 1,144.
Read the Folha report about the preceding events
Essential Earlier Reports
6. Deutsche Welle — What Is the Fake News Inquiry? September 10, 2026
DW reconstructs the origin of the investigation, its expansion over the years, the legal challenges, and Fachin's decision to assume responsibility for its conduct.
Read Deutsche Welle's historical analysis
7. Reuters — Fachin Suspends Decisions by Mendonça and Dino Concerning the Leadership of the Federal Police and Removes Moraes as Rapporteur of the Fake News Inquiry, September 9, 2026
The international news agency documented the transfer of the investigation to the Presidency of the Supreme Court, in the context of that month's institutional crisis.
3. WHY WAS INQUIRY 4,781 NICKNAMED THE “END OF THE WORLD INQUIRY”?
The expression was used by former Brazilian Supreme Federal Court Justice Marco Aurélio Mello .
In an interview with UOL on May 6, 2020, Marco Aurélio criticized the initiation of the proceeding without an initial request from the Public Prosecutor's Office and the direct appointment of Alexandre de Moraes as rapporteur, without a random assignment.
These were two of the main grounds for his criticism.
Subsequently, Marco Aurélio was the only Justice to vote against the constitutionality of the inquiry in ADPF 572.
The judgment ended with ten votes to one in June 2020.
How the Inquiry Began
On March 14, 2019, then-STF President Dias Toffoli issued Ordinance GP 69/2019.
The ordinance ordered the opening of an investigation into fraudulent news, false criminal accusations, threats, and other conduct that could affect the security and prerogatives of the Court, its Justices, and their families.
The regulatory basis was Article 43 of the STF's Internal Rules.
That provision authorizes, under certain circumstances, the initiation of an investigation by the President of the Court.
The legal debate has always involved the extent of this exceptional authority.
This is because Brazil's constitutional model establishes distinct powers for criminal investigation, prosecution, and adjudication.
The Court's own investigative activity constitutes an exceptional situation, the admissibility and limits of which were debated by the Full Court in ADPF 572.
4. THE DECISIVE POINT: FUX'S DECISION CONTAINS LEGAL GROUNDS THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED
I examined the decision of October 8, 2026.
The document consists of 14 pages and was issued in ADPF 1,144.
Original document:
COMPLETE DECISION BY LUIZ FUX — ADPF 1,144 — OCTOBER 8, 2026 — PDF, 14 PAGES
The legal reasoning is particularly important for four reasons.
4.1. The Case Files Belong to the Court, Not Individually to the Rapporteur
On pages 9 and 10, Fux argues that the case files institutionally belong to the Court and that a Justice competent to examine a particular act must have knowledge of the elements necessary for adjudication.
This reasoning derives from the very structure of constitutional jurisdiction.
The role of rapporteur confers authority to direct the proceedings, but it does not transform judicial documents into information personally controlled by the judge.
The question submitted for analysis is whether the rapporteur of an ADPF may have his access restricted when he needs to examine the constitutional validity of acts carried out in another proceeding before the same Court.
This is a controversy concerning jurisdiction and internal judicial review, not a simple administrative request to consult documents.
4.2. Secrecy Does Not Necessarily Have the Same Scope With Respect to Third Parties and Competent Judges
Fux distinguishes the protection of an investigation against improper disclosure from the need for judicial review.
Article 20 of the Brazilian Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes the secrecy necessary to clarify the facts.
However, this authorization does not automatically mean that all members of a court must be prevented from consulting the documents.
The relevant issue is to identify who has the legal authority to examine them and which safeguards must accompany such access.
It is perfectly possible to preserve judicial secrecy from the public while simultaneously allowing confidential access to the judge responsible for determining the legality of the proceeding.
This is the core of the argument developed by Fux on pages 10 and 11.
4.3. The Comparison Between the Defense's Access and the Adjudicator's Access
One of the most important passages of the decision appears on page 11.
Fux states:
The Court cannot know less than the parties about what the Court does.
The sentence summarizes his argument.
According to the decision, Alexandre de Moraes himself had informed, in ADPF 572, that duly appointed attorneys received access to the relevant materials through digital copies and a commitment to maintain confidentiality.
Fux understands that the judge responsible for constitutional review must also be able to consult those materials.
The argument must be analyzed in conjunction with Binding Precedent No. 14 (Súmula Binculante 14) , which guarantees the defense access to evidentiary materials already documented and related to the exercise of the right of defense, without automatically encompassing investigative measures still in progress.
This does not mean that every person, attorney, or judge has an unrestricted right of access to any investigation.
It means that the restriction must be compatible with the function performed by the requester and with the specific purpose of confidentiality.
4.4. Constitutional Review of the STF's Own Acts
On page 10, Fux develops another institutional argument.
He observes that the Constitution does not establish a category of Supreme Court acts immune from constitutional review.
The fact that a particular act was performed by an STF Justice does not, in itself, eliminate the possibility of its examination through the appropriate procedural mechanisms.
This reasoning is directly related to Article 102 of the Constitution, Law No. 9,882/1999, and the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate claims of noncompliance with fundamental precepts.
Article 6, paragraph 1, of Law No. 9,882/1999 allows the rapporteur to request additional information necessary to assess the controversy.
Fux also invokes provisions of the Court's Internal Rules concerning the direction of proceedings and the request of case files.
Therefore, his request was not presented merely as a prerogative arising from his status as a Supreme Court Justice, but as an evidentiary measure in a proceeding assigned to him as rapporteur.
5. DOES FACHIN'S DECISION RESOLVE THESE ARGUMENTS?
The statement reported on October 9 presents grounds for maintaining secrecy and explains the administrative measures being taken to reorganize the investigation.
However, there is a distinction that deserves closer examination.
The need to organize the case files does not, by itself, answer the question of another judge's jurisdictional authority to examine them.
These are different problems.
Fachin may justify maintaining secrecy because of pending investigative measures, the protection of persons under investigation, or the need to preserve sensitive information.
That does not automatically mean that Fux's confidential access would compromise those purposes.
To evaluate the restriction, it would be necessary to clarify:
- Which statutory or regulatory provision would prevent the rapporteur of ADPF 1,144 from examining the case files?
- Which documents actually require additional processing before they can be consulted, including under confidentiality?
- Why would controlled institutional access prejudice that examination?
- What would be the appropriate procedure for resolving the disagreement between the two Justices' decisions?
These questions do not presume that Fachin has committed an illegality.
They identify the grounds that would need to be examined to determine whether the restriction is legally appropriate.
It is also relevant to note that Fachin's statement, according to the reports, does not necessarily represent a definitive denial: he announced his intention to allow access later, after the pending measures have been completed.
The immediate legal problem is whether this postponement is compatible with Fux's procedural responsibilities.
6. ADPF 572 DID NOT GRANT UNLIMITED AUTHORIZATION TO INQUIRY 4,781
This is a particularly important point for understanding Fux's decision.
In June 2020, the STF declared the initiation of Inquiry 4,781 constitutional.
But that decision did not establish a general authorization to investigate any person indefinitely for any conduct.
The judgment had a specific subject matter and specific legal grounds.
As Fux's own decision recalls, the Full Court established conditions for the conduct of the investigation, including:
Participation of the Public Prosecutor's Office. The investigation was to be monitored by the constitutionally competent body responsible for bringing public criminal prosecutions.
Compliance with Binding Precedent No. 14. The guarantees of the defense were to be respected.
Delimitation of the subject matter. The investigation was to remain linked to conduct representing an actual risk to judicial independence, under the terms defined by the judgment.
These conditions are essential for interpreting the scope of the precedent.
The constitutionality of the initiation of a proceeding, recognized under particular circumstances, does not mean that all acts subsequently performed are automatically constitutional.
The legality of specific measures remains subject to judicial review through the appropriate procedural instruments.
Fachin's Position in 2020
Fachin was the rapporteur of ADPF 572.
At that time, he defended the constitutionality of the inquiry's initiation as an exceptional measure of institutional protection.
Fux joined the majority's conclusion.
Therefore, what is observed now is not necessarily a contradiction between Fux's position in 2020 and his decision of October 2026.
The current issue is different.
In 2020, the constitutional validity of the inquiry's initiation was debated under the circumstances then submitted to the Court.
In 2026, Fux seeks to examine whether certain subsequent proceedings respected the applicable constitutional and procedural limits.
They are distinct legal matters.
7. WHAT HAPPENED IN SEPTEMBER 2026?
Fachin's decision to remove Alexandre de Moraes from the conduct of Inquiry 4,781 did not occur in isolation.
In September, the press documented an institutional crisis involving members of the Supreme Court and discussions about the activities of the Federal Police.
The episode included disagreements between Alexandre de Moraes and André Mendonça, related to documents and suspicions whose investigation came to involve the Presidency of the Court.
These suspicions must continue to be treated as allegations until there is proof and a decision by the competent authority.
On September 9, 2026 , Fachin issued Ordinance 189, revoking Moraes's designation to conduct the inquiry.
The STF's official statement clarified that the revocation would have prospective effects.
This means that the change of rapporteur was not conceived as an automatic declaration of nullity of all previous acts.
The official communication itself reserved the possibility of examining those acts through the appropriate procedural channels.
It also preserved the continuation of related criminal cases in which indictments had already been accepted.
This reservation is important.
Provisionally preserving the effects of previous procedural acts does not mean making them immune from constitutional or legal challenges.
It means only that any potential nullity must be examined through the legally appropriate procedure, in compliance with the applicable requirements.
8. THE CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSION: JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE, THE NATURAL JUDGE, AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW
The Federal Constitution of 1988 establishes fundamental guarantees relevant to the controversy.
Article 5 guarantees, among other rights, access to the Judiciary, the prohibition of exceptional courts, due process of law, the adversarial process, and the full right of defense.
Article 93, IX, requires judicial decisions to be public and reasoned, subject to legally permitted restrictions.
These provisions must be interpreted in an integrated manner.
Secrecy may protect fundamental rights, including privacy and the effectiveness of legitimate investigations.
However, its application cannot eliminate the mechanisms of judicial review established by the Constitution itself.
Likewise, judicial independence does not mean that a judge is immune from judicial scrutiny of his acts.
It protects the function of adjudicating according to law, without improper interference.
Judicial independence and constitutional accountability are not incompatible principles.
The tension arises when it becomes necessary to review acts performed by members of the very institution responsible for constitutional review.
In this context, the question of objective impartiality assumes particular importance.
The system must offer sufficient guarantees so that the legality of acts can be examined by a competent authority through a verifiable and reasoned procedure.
This concern finds support both in the Constitution of 1988 and in the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct.
9. INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW ALSO PROVIDES STANDARDS
The American Convention on Human Rights establishes guarantees applicable to the operation of courts.
Article 8 provides for the right to be heard by a competent, independent, and impartial court, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time.
Article 13 protects freedom of thought and expression, allowing restrictions under specific conditions.
Article 25 guarantees the existence of an effective judicial remedy for protection against violations of fundamental rights, including when committed by public authorities.
These provisions do not, in themselves, establish that every confidential proceeding is illegal.
Nor do they allow the conclusion, without concrete examination, that the duration of Inquiry 4,781 necessarily constitutes an international violation.
However, they provide criteria for analyzing its duration, the scope of the investigations, the conditions of defense, the review of jurisdictional competence, and the existence of effective remedies.
In the context of Inquiry 4,781, it is especially relevant to verify whether the available mechanisms allow an independent and reasoned examination of the acts performed during the investigation.
Full text of the American Convention on Human Rights — OAS
10. THE QUESTION OF THE 104 PROCEEDINGS: WHAT STILL NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED
According to Fachin, the Presidency identified 104 proceedings linked to Inquiry 4,781.
This information raises important questions for a procedural audit.
The first is to identify the nature of each proceeding.
An incidental petition, a preliminary investigation, an application for interim relief, and a criminal action have different procedural characteristics.
It cannot be assumed that the 104 proceedings correspond to 104 autonomous criminal investigations.
Nor is it possible to conclude, solely from their number, that there was irregular assignment or illegal concentration of jurisdiction.
However, the linking of several proceedings to an original inquiry makes it relevant to verify the legal grounds used for each assignment.
The second issue is documentary.
In his decision of October 8, Fux identifies the need to examine the chain of procedural links between Inquiry 4,781, Inquiry 4,874, and Petitions 10,405 and 12,100.
He observes that identifying possible connection or prior jurisdiction depends on examining the corresponding decisions, certificates, and documents.
This is precisely the reason presented for his request for access.
The third issue concerns timing.
Fux records that Inquiry 4,781 was converted into electronic case files on September 14, 2026 .
Fachin, in turn, states that the related collection of documents still requires digitization, organization, and individualized examination.
The two statements are not necessarily incompatible: converting the main case files does not mean that all linked procedures are already fully organized.
But this distinction should be made explicit in order to understand which material difficulties still prevent compliance with the request.
11. DOES THE CLOSURE ANNOUNCED BY FACHIN AUTOMATICALLY END THE CONTROVERSY?
Node.
The eventual closure and archiving of Inquiry 4,781 does not, by itself, resolve all legal questions concerning acts previously performed.
It is necessary to distinguish the conclusion of an investigation from the effects of judicial decisions issued during its course.
Criminal cases that may have originated from related proceedings must also be considered.
The September 2026 decision expressly preserved the continuation of criminal cases in which indictments had already been accepted.
Therefore, the announced closure may end the main investigation without necessarily extinguishing all proceedings or controversies arising from it.
Any challenges concerning nullities, jurisdiction, evidence, and defense rights will continue to depend on the appropriate procedural instruments.
The possibility of reviewing previous acts was itself preserved in the STF's official communication concerning Ordinance 189.
12. AN IMPORTANT FINDING: THE STF ITSELF RECOGNIZED THE NEED TO REVIEW THE LIMITS OF THE INQUIRY
A combined reading of ADPF 572, Ordinance 189/2026, and Fux's decision in ADPF 1,144 makes it possible to identify three distinct institutional moments.
First moment — 2019: The Presidency of the STF initiated an exceptional proceeding to investigate threats and conduct directed against the institution.
Second moment — 2020: The Full Court recognized the constitutionality of the initiation of the proceeding, establishing parameters for its conduct.
Third moment — 2026: The Presidency once again assumed responsibility for conducting the inquiry and announced its conclusion, while another constitutional action began to require documentary examination of acts related to the investigations.
These events do not allow an automatic conclusion that all acts of the investigation were legal or illegal.
But they demonstrate that the legal debate remained open regarding the concrete application of the limits established by the Supreme Court itself.
And they make Fux's request to examine the documentation particularly relevant.
The reason is procedural:
Without access to the necessary materials, it is not possible to carry out a complete judicial analysis of issues that depends precisely on those documents.
13. LEGAL CONCLUSION
The documentation examined makes it possible to formulate a limited conclusion.
In 2020, the STF recognized the constitutionality of the initiation of Inquiry 4,781, within specific circumstances and limits.
In 2026, the Presidency of the Court removed its conduct from Alexandre de Moraes and announced its intention to conclude it.
At the same time, Luiz Fux, exercising his duties as rapporteur of an ADPF, ordered access to documents necessary to examine allegations of procedural irregularity.
Fachin postponed full access to Inquiry 4,781, invoking secrecy and the need to complete the examination of the related proceedings.
The issue that remains unresolved is whether this postponement is compatible with the investigatory and evidentiary powers of the rapporteur of ADPF 1,144.
The Constitution allows the protection of confidential investigations.
But it also requires acts of the Judiciary to be subject to constitutionally established mechanisms of judicial review.
The resolution of this controversy depends on specific legal reasoning concerning institutional access to documents, not merely on general considerations about the existence of secrecy.
There is, therefore, an essential difference between protecting information against improper public disclosure and restricting its consultation by a competent judicial authority.
The real legal problem presented in October 2026 is determining how these two requirements must coexist within the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court itself.
It is a question that goes beyond personal disagreements between Justices and reaches the institutional architecture of constitutional review in Brazil.
FUNDAMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR CONTINUING THE INVESTIGATION
I highlight three particularly important primary sources:
1. STF — ADPF 572, Judgment of June 18, 2020
Decision recognizing the constitutionality of the initiation of Inquiry 4,781 under the circumstances examined by the Court.
Consult the decision and procedural history of ADPF 572 at the STF
2. STF — Official Statement of September 9, 2026
Communication recording Ordinance 189 and the transfer of responsibility for conducting the inquiry to the Presidency.
Consult the official statement of the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court
3. STF — ADPF 1,144, Luiz Fux's Decision of October 8, 2026
Complete document, containing legal reasoning concerning access to the case files, secrecy, jurisdictional competence, prior jurisdiction, and constitutional review.
Consult the full PDF of Fux's decision
A documentary qualification: I was able to examine the full text of Fux's decision, but I did not locate, in this research, an independent complete copy of Fachin's official letter of October 9.
The analysis of Fachin's position is therefore based on the passages reproduced by the press and on the available institutional documents.
For a definitive legal analysis of the disagreement, obtaining the complete text of that official letter will be particularly important.
AN ASPECT THAT DESERVES CONTINUED MONITORING
ADPF 1,144 was filed in April 2024, and Fux's decision requesting the documentation was issued in October 2026.
The procedural sequence needs to be examined to clarify what occurred during that interval and for what reasons the evidentiary proceedings were summarized now.
It will also be necessary to monitor whether Fux's request will be complied with, whether confidential access will be limited, or whether the disagreement will be submitted to some form of judicial consideration.
These developments may clarify the effective limits of constitutional review of acts performed within the STF itself.
I can monitor new orders and decisions in ADPF 1,144 and Inquiry 4,781 , including any response by Fux to the denial of access and decisions concerning the closure of the inquiry.
Would you like me to set up this monitoring?
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário