"" MINDD - DEFENDA SEUS DIREITOS

Pesquisar este blog

sexta-feira, 9 de outubro de 2026

JUSTICE ANDRÉ MENDONÇA: GOD IS IN CONTROL OF EVERYTHING EVERYTHING IS EQUAL TO EVERYTHING: Divine Sovereignty, Human Justice, and the Search for Truth : God predestined you to be the image and likeness of Christ Jesus on earth. That is the essence; that is the purpose. Pastor and Justice André Mendonça

 

GOD IS IN CONTROL OF EVERYTHING
EVERYTHING IS EQUAL TO EVERYTHING: Divine Sovereignty, Human Justice, and the Search for Truth


https://youtu.be/t426QnNDUYw?is=VqQo7kbF7xO6Y5o8
“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.”
— BIBLE, KJV, Romans 8:28

When we look at the great dilemmas of humanity—whether it is the rigorous assurance of truth in earthly courts or the understanding of God's sovereignty in eternity—we perceive an invisible thread that unites all things. As the reflection that everything is equal to everything aptly summarizes, the laws governing moral, spiritual, and legal justice share the exact same essence: the irreducible pursuit of truth, integrity, and love.

This profound parallel becomes even clearer when examining recent international legal discussions, such as the constitutional comparative analyzes published by MINDD in the article "Equal Justice Under Law, Da Mihi Factum" . In these debates, veteran American jurist Scott Erik Stafne —drawing upon fifty years of professional practice—raises a vital constitutional question regarding whether modern courts are fulfilling their foundational duty to act as impartial fact-finders rather than yielding to systemic and structural failures.

Below, we connect the dots between the constitutional concerns raised by Scott Erik Stafne regarding due process and the profound spiritual message delivered by Rev. André Mendonça —a renowned Presbyterian minister and Justice of the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF)—based on Romans 8, including the full, unedited transcript of the sermon at the end with direct KJV verse links.


1. The Earthly Tribunal and the Heavenly Tribunal

In law, there is an ancient maxim guiding jurisdiction: Da mihi factum, dabo tibi ius ("Give me the facts, and I will give you the law"). The premise requires courts to act impartially as true fact-finders before applying the law.

However, as highlighted in legal analyzes by scholars like Scott Erik Stafne, when justice systems fail structurally—whether in the United States or in Brazil—driven by economic interests or systemic corruption, citizens find themselves helpless against tyranny disguised as legality. It is precisely at this point that the spiritual perspective brings us comfort and clarity: in the divine dimension, God is the supreme judge who never fails .

While human justice often attempts to condemn or silence the innocent, the Word reminds us: "If God be for us, who can be against us? [...] It is God that justifieth" ( Romans 8:31 / Romans 8:33 ).

2. The Illusion of Humanism and the Danger of Greed

Both in the deviations of the judiciary and in the existential crises of human beings, the fundamental error lies in humanism without God and in control by mammon (the worship of money and power).

  • In legal disputes, we witness laws being shaped to favor corporate groups to the detriment of public safety, justice, and property rights—an erosion of legal certainty that experts like Scott Erik Stafne have extensively exposed.
  • In the human soul, we witness humanity's attempt to sustain itself through its own rationality, generating guilt, self-accusation, and ruin.

Against this current, the Trinity operates in favor of humanity. While the Holy Spirit intercedes for us with unutterable groanings ( Romans 8:26 ), Christ stands at the right hand of God as our true defense advocate ( Romans 8:34 ), shielding us against the false accusations of the world.

3. The Thread: Victory as a Consummated Fact

Rev. André Mendonça highlights that when analyzing the chain of predestination in Romans 8— "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate... moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called... and whom he justified, them he also glorified" ( Romans 8:29-30 )—the verbs are in the past tense. This teaches us a liberating truth: the victory of God's people is not a statistical uncertainty or a mere possibility; it is a consummated fact in eternity.

Whether fighting for the integrity of laws on earth, defending the prerogatives of the legal profession following the warnings of Scott Erik Stafne, or facing the storms of personal life, the principle remains the same. In the end, all things work together for the good of those who love the truth and divine purpose.

Conclusion

Earthly justice and divine justice demand the same courage: refusing submission to corruptible powers and anchoring life in that which is immutable. As the Apostle Paul concludes, nothing—neither death, nor life, nor principalities, nor the structures of power in this world—shall ever be able to separate us from the love of God ( Romans 8:38-39 ).

Everything is interconnected. And whoever is firmly rooted in the truth of God has already won.


Full Transcript of the Sermon (Integrity of the Message) — Rev. André Mendonça

Bibliographic Reference:

BIBLE. NT Romans. English. The Holy Bible: King James Version . London: 1611. Available at: < https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Romans-Chapter-8/ >.


This video features a biblical reflection led by Rev. André Mendonça, based on Romans 8:26-39. The central theme is that God controls all things and provides constant care for His followers through the Trinity.


Key Takeaways:


The Trinity Intercedes: The preacher explains that God the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit actively intercedes for the Christian's life. He highlights that the Holy Spirit intercedes with "inexpressible groanings" (0:26, 9:31-15:32).

Divine Protection: It is emphasized that believers are not left to chance. Even amidst tribulations, anguish, or persecution, God assists and protects those who love Him (4:46, 17:02-19:23).

Freedom from Guilt: A major focus is the invitation to abandon feelings of self-accusation and condemnation. The preacher reinforces that, in Jesus Christ, the believer is justified, and there is no more condemnation for those chosen by God (20:21-27:26).

The Process of Victory: Victory is presented as a guaranteed reality from eternity. The process involves being known, predestined, called, justified, and glorified by God (28:18-34:26).

The Inseparable Love of God: The message concludes by reinforcing that nothing—neither death, life, powers, nor any circumstance—can separate the believer from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus (36:34-38:06).

At the end of the video, there is a ministerial prayer moment where the preacher leaves the pulpit to pray for the congregation, inviting them to cast away their fears and surrender their burdens to God (39:39-42:24).

🔗 Watch the official video: "GOD CONTROLS ALL THINGS" — REV. ANDRÉ MENDONÇA

Sermon by André Mendonça, Pastor and Justice of Brazil's Supreme Federal Court (STF)

0:00–0:39

Let us read Romans chapter 8, beginning with verse number 26. The Word of God says: Likewise, the Spirit also helps us in our weakness, because we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us exceedingly, with inexpressible groanings. And He who searches hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because it is according to the will of God that He intercedes for the saints.

0:40–1:16

We know that all things work together for the good of those who love God, for those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He might be the firstborn among many. And those whom He predestined, He also called; and those whom He called, He also justified; and those whom He justified, He also glorified.

1:16–4:05

What, then, shall we say in view of these things? Repeat with me: If God is for us, who will be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, will He not also graciously give us all things with Him? Who will bring an accusation against God's elect? It is God who justifies them; who will condemn them? It is Christ who died—who died, or rather, who rose again—who is at the right hand of God and who also intercedes for us. Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or hunger, or nakedness, or danger, or the sword? As it is written: For Your sake we are delivered to death all day long; we have been considered sheep for the slaughter. In all these things, however, we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us, because I am quite certain that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Let us bow our heads and seek God in prayer. God, thank You, thank You for this Word, so rich, so precious. Thank You for Your Gospel; thank You for Your revelation; thank You because Your Word is alive and it speaks to us. God, we now intercede for this very special moment, which is the moment of the Word. Speak to the heart of Your Church, to every life present here. In spite of the preacher, use me solely through Your mercy, so that Your Word may reach hearts, minds, and lives, so that Your name may be glorified. It is in Christ Jesus that we pray. Amen.

4:06–29:59

My brothers and my sisters, I have said this a few times already, but it is because the Word of God says it several times: we go through and will go through tribulations. If we go there to verses numbers 36 and 35—let us go to 36 first—“As it is written: For Your sake we are delivered every day, all day long; we have been considered sheep for the slaughter.” This is the life of the believer. The devil is prowling around like a roaring lion, wanting to devour us. And we have, in the light of this Word, the certainty that God is governing our lives, that you have not been left to your own fate in the face of situations, adversities, illnesses, persecutions, and, often, the lack of hope. This is in light of the human and existential reality in which we find ourselves, as it also says in verse 35, in its second part, that we will go through tribulation, perhaps distress, perhaps persecutions, perhaps hunger, perhaps nakedness—to the point of not having the resources to clothe ourselves—perhaps danger, perhaps the sword.

Faced with this reality, if the human being trusts in himself, he is left to his own fate, he is left to his own agony, in deep agony. And various theories of this world try to say that the human being can do it by himself, can do it through his rationality, can do it through his resources, can do it through science. This is humanism, a humanism without God, a rationalism without reason, because what is reasonable for man is not what is reasonable for God; what is reasonable for God is madness to man. On your own, you are left to your own fate. With God, in the light of this Word, you are under God's assistance, protection, and care.

Calvin says, based on this text, when commenting on this text, that God has full authority and governs all things. And it is in the light of this key, of care—which has an essence—that we ask: How does God govern all things? There is a principle in the text, which is love. God governs your life because He loves you. God governs the universe because He loves us, because it is the work of His creation. And the key to these texts about love is there in verse 36: that we are delivered to tribulations and persecutions, like sheep for the slaughter, for the love of God, for the love of You, we are delivered like sheep for the slaughter, it says.

But more than that, verse number 28: “We know that all things work together for the good” of whom? Of those who love God. Again, verse number 35: “Who will separate us from the love” of whom? Of Christ. Verse number 37: “In all these things, however, we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.” Verse number 39, the second part: “Nothing, neither height, nor depth, nor anything else, will be able to separate us from the love” of whom? Of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. The key to God's care for your life is God's love for you. You are not a work of chance; that is why your story is not subject to chance events.

Having said that, God governs your life. In the light of this text, what I was able to draw from it takes three forms. First, God, in the Trinity—God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit—intercedes for you, intercedes for your life. This word “intercession,” in Greek, is in the text; it is related, there in verse number 26, to an intercessory prayer—not only how to pray, but what to pray. The Holy Spirit, it says, intercedes for us exceedingly, with inexpressible groanings. Some of us prayed on our knees here in this service. I am certain that none of us managed to reach this level of intercession, of praying to God exceedingly, with inexpressible groanings. It is a capacity for communion with God; it is a capacity to seek God, to plead before God, in a unique way.

But it is not only the Holy Spirit, with His power, with His dynamis, who intercedes for us. Christ also intercedes for us. Verse number 34: "Who will condemn us? Christ Jesus died—or rather, rose again—who is at the right hand of God and also intercedes for us." Look, here, in verse number 34, the Greek root is different from the one used in verse number 26. They are two expressions used to designate prayer. In the context of verse number 36, besides being an intercessory prayer, it involves approaching, making a petition for you, bringing your name and your cause to the throne and before the throne of God. We are not capable of doing this for ourselves.

But more than that, in the light of verse number 34, Jesus interceded for us in two ways. This intercession in eternity—He who is at the right hand of God—is as though, in an intimate conversation, God was at the center and Jesus at His right hand. Try to imagine the scene: one beside the other. "My Father, I present José's cause; I present Maria's cause. I intercede for them." The contact is direct, it is divine, it is heavenly. But in the first part of the text, there was another kind of intercession that Jesus made for you: Christ Jesus, who died and rose again for you. At the command of the Father, through the providence of the Father, through the calling of the Father, He came into the world for the love of you—not only of you, but especially for you.

But it is more than that. God the Father is also interceding. Let us now return to verse number 27. And I spoke of the intimacy of Jesus with God. Let us now speak of the intimacy of the Holy Spirit with God, and of God with the Holy Spirit. “And He who searches,” verse 27, “hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is.” God knows the mind of the Spirit. They are one person, in three. God, who searches your heart, knows what the mind of the Spirit is. That is why the Holy Spirit intercedes, in full communion, for you and for me, together with God.

But more than that, He intercedes not according to our will, because the Spirit also knows—according to that part of the text, verse 27—the Holy Spirit also knows the mind of God. It says: “Because it is according to the will of God that He,” He the Spirit, “intercedes for the saints.” The Trinity intercedes for you. You are not a work of chance. And it is interesting: the Spirit knows the mind of God, God knows the mind of the Spirit, and Christ and they know one another mutually, one with the other, reciprocally. And I return to the point: the key is love.

Therefore, the mentality of God's governance and care over your life is the mentality of God, whose essence is love. That is why, that is why He renounces any government that involves acts of ungodliness, that involves corruptible or empty things. I say this, my brother and my sister, because sometimes we expect this government of God to come in a form as if He were to cast fire, a bolt of lightning, and burn what needs to be burned. But that is not the essence. That is not the essence. He intercedes for me and for you in love, out of love, and will do what must be done with the essence of love, with the mind of God. Because, after all, the greatest intercession He could make for us He has already made: He sent us His Son, in love, so that everyone who believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

Second, besides interceding for you, the Trinity assists and protects you. It cares for you, it cares for you, in two ways. But before speaking of those ways, the Trinity cares because there, through the Holy Spirit, verse number 26, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. He is not our assistant. This assistance is not an expression designating something that is there to advise us. No. It is the Holy Spirit of God. This assistance is the assistance of care, of preservation, of giving a helping hand, of being the help. This assistance involves supporting you when you are falling, when you have no strength: He sustains you. This assistance involves grabbing you and pulling you out of the mire of sin, and sometimes pulling you out of persecutions—preservations and care that many times we cannot even imagine.

How many things, accidents, preventions God has carried out for us, of which we have no idea! Try to imagine, those of you who have had children, that small child who began walking and crawling, putting a finger into an electrical outlet, touching a fire, falling from a place, climbing somewhere dangerous, and the parents are there, just watching and taking care. We are those children, being cared for by God. We are sometimes unaware of the danger, but God is there caring for each of us.

But it is not only the Spirit who protects and assists us; Christ and God also do. Let us devote ourselves to verses 31 to 34. There are two keys to care here: care in the face of an accusation; care in the face of a condemnation. And these two keys: verse number 33, “Who will bring an accusation against God's elect?” Verse 34, “Who will condemn them?” Sometimes you are accused; sometimes they try to condemn you. And this accusation and this attempt at condemnation I will divide into two perspectives, as I said: the human perspective and the spiritual perspective.

The human perspective: at first, we always remember someone accusing us of something. But let us take one step back. There is a worse accusation than that: when we accuse ourselves, when we impose upon ourselves a guilt, a guilt that sometimes we do not even have. It is demanding more of yourself than you should demand; it is accusing yourself beyond what you should accuse yourself of. This too is a false accusation. This feeling of guilt of yours, which perhaps you have carried for years, accusing yourself, this feeling of guilt—I want, in the name of Jesus, for it to be buried here today, for you to stop sabotaging yourself. Because the devil uses this against us: us accusing ourselves and sabotaging ourselves. We already wake up defeated by ourselves; we already go into battle defeated, because we have already defeated ourselves. Stop that in the name of Jesus.

Reading some books during this vacation period, I read Francis Schaeffer, and he talks a little about this feeling of guilt. It is the individual sabotaging himself. And he says there is a psychological feeling of guilt in this human being, in this person, without there being any real guilt. You have done nothing, but because you think, you already condemn yourself, accuse yourself, and condemn yourself. My brother and my sister, free yourselves from this psychological feeling of guilt. Schaeffer says that many times feelings of guilt are present when, in truth, no guilt exists.

But there are situations in which there is guilt. Let us now speak of this second situation. If there is guilt, what happens? Let us see what the text says. "Who," verse number 33, "who will bring an accusation against God's elect? It is God who..." If there is guilt, in the name of Jesus, God justifies you tonight. God forgives you. Confess your guilt, and God justifies you. Justification means delivery, an acquisition. When you bear true guilt, God in Jesus Christ died for us, rose again for us, and with Him our sins died, and with Him someone justified, regenerated, a new person, rises again. André is no longer André; he is a new André. Janei is no longer Janei; she is a new Janei—I am referring to my wife. And you are no longer yourselves; you are new in Christ Jesus.

God protects you. God does not allow accusations made against you to prosper. God does not allow attempted condemnations against you to prosper, in the human perspective. But now I also say, in the spiritual perspective: because the devil presents himself before God: “Look there, André is not perfect. Did You see what he did? Did You see what he failed to do?” No. But the Word is the same: it is God who justifies us. Before this accuser, there at the right hand of God is Christ Jesus, our defender, our advocate, interceding for us, defending us. "Father, I have already died for André. Father, I have already died for Maria, for José, for Mariana, for Antônia, for Antônio. I have already died for them." God justifies you. There is no longer any condemnation upon me, upon you. God in Christ Jesus forgave our sins, rescued us.

And it is interesting, I return to Calvin, to the comment he makes on this text. Calvin says that whoever wishes to condemn us will have to kill Christ Himself again. It is no longer possible. Therefore, do not condemn yourself. Therefore, do not accept the condemnations, or the slanders, and the denunciations against you. Whoever does this is as if he were trying to kill Christ Himself again. Look at the key: if you condemn yourself, if you accuse yourself, it is as if you yourself wanted to be condemning Christ again. Remove the guilt from yourself. Follow the path God has prepared for you.

And now let us see, third, what that path is or where that path will lead. God, the Trinity, gives you and me victory. We are going to focus our efforts on verses 28 to 30. But first, I draw attention to verse number 37: “In all these things we are more than conquerors.” That is the essence; but here it is the result. Let us see, in verses 28 to 30, the process of victory. We know, verse 28, “that all things work together for the good of those who love God.” All things: not only life's victories, but also defeats; not only the yeses, but also the noes and the “waits”; not only the doors that open, but also the doors that close. All things work together for the good of those who love God.

But before saying, “All things work together for the good of those who love God,” the apostle, inspired by God, could have said that; but that was not the inspiration. There is an expression before it. How does the verse begin? “We know.” Do you know? Have you—or, to speak here in Pentecostal terms—taken possession of this? Take possession, my brother! Know it; put it into your consciousness: all things work together for the good of those who love God, for those who are called according to His purpose. And how does that happen? There is a calling; there is a purpose.

29:58–42:25

And now let us work on this point.

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom He predestined, He also called; and those whom He called, He also justified; and those whom He justified, He also glorified.

And beforehand comes the sequence: He predestined you. He established, in His omniscience, in His omnipotence, what the course of your life would be. At the same time, this predestination, considering that God governs all things, is not something fixed. We talk a great deal about algorithms today, don't we? Companies transform algorithms according to their own convenience. What is artificial intelligence compared to the intelligence of God, my brother and my sister? Know that all things work together for your good because God intervenes in history. If necessary, He changes the algorithms; He changes everything. Sometimes it is a matter of your leaving ten seconds late or ten seconds early because of a sudden impulse that God gives you, and you are spared an accident, a situation.

God is not a slave to circumstances. You are not a slave to circumstances, whether man or woman, because in God all things work together for your good. You were known; you were predestined. Now, there is an essence to this predestination. Verse 29 tells us: You were predestined for what? To be a businessperson, to be a judge, to be a teacher, to be a doctor, to be a nurse, whether man or woman? For what does the text say? “He predestined them to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He might be the firstborn among many brothers.” God predestined you to be the image and likeness of Christ Jesus on earth. That is the essence; that is the purpose.

But verse number 30: “Those whom He predestined, He also called.” If you have not yet felt called, I call you today in the name of Jesus, my brother, my sister. You are called because you were loved, you were known, and you were predestined to be the image and likeness of the living God on the face of the earth. Receive your calling! “And those whom He called, He also justified.” Remove the guilt, the accusations, and the condemnations. “And those whom He justified, He also glorified.” Receive the victory! This is the process in love: you were known, you were predestined, you were called, you were justified, and you were glorified.

There is something interesting here: you were, you were, you were... He called, He justified... The verb is in the past! Why is the verb in the past, if it is something that is going to happen, something has already happened, but there are things yet to happen? Because the victory has already been given, my brother! It is not an uncertainty, it is not a possibility; it is only a declaration of something that has already happened in eternity, in the name of Jesus.

And if there is hope, if there is this process of victory, my request and my prayer are that you rest in this process of God and do not surrender to self-accusations and self-condemnations, because in man there is no hope, but in God there is hope. And here I conclude by saying that faith is not a leap into the dark. Faith is a leap into the arms of God. A leap into the dark is trusting in yourself. It is a leap of hope and it is a leap of victory, because if God is for us, who will be against us?

That is why I exhort you to have faith, to have patience. Understand the process; understand the essence of love. And here I finish with verses 38 and 39, because I am quite certain—and look at the size and the dimension of the victory—that neither death nor life (you can die, but you live in Christ), neither angels, nor the angels of God nor the powers of the enemy, neither things present, nor human circumstances, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Take possession of this Word! What are your tribulations?

 What accusations weigh, or weighed, upon you? I want to ask you to cast them away. 

Cast away your anxieties; cast away your fears. And besides that, what are your dreams and your purposes for which God predestined you on this journey in which we pursue being the image and likeness of Christ Jesus? Entrust them to God—or better, entrust them to the Holy Spirit, so that He may intercede exceedingly, with inexpressible groanings, before God. 

Entrust them at the cross of Christ, the One who is seated at the right hand, so that He may intercede for you, so that He may present not only your name but, together with your name, your causes. And have faith and have living and secure hope.

I want to pray for you. I want to invite you to stand up. If you want to come forward, I invite you to come forward. Meanwhile, the worship team, which will lead us in the hymn... 

If I may ask that we also sing “Castelo Forte” (“A Mighty Fortress”) again, in addition to the hymn you have prepared, that you come forward; I am going to come down here to pray with you. God bless you, God bless you, my sisters. God bless you, God bless you.

Come here, my brother... Let us pray: Father, here are our brothers, our sisters. At this hour, God, we want to cast away every accusation, every attempt to defeat us, whether from ourselves or from third parties. 

We trust our cause to You, Father; 

we place our circumstances and our trials before You. 

We cast them away, Father, to receive Your blessing, Your care, to ask that the Lord intercedes for us, that the Lord protects us and cares for us, that the Lord gives us victory, not through ourselves, but in Christ Jesus, in love and in the power of the Holy Spirit of God.

Bless Your Church, Father; bless your people. 

May this year that presents itself before us be a year of victory. 

May it be a year in which the Lord is ruling over us, in which the Lord is caring for us, for our home, for our work, wherever we may be, for the honor and glory of His holy name.

 It is in Christ Jesus that we pray. Amen.


quinta-feira, 8 de outubro de 2026

DA MIHI FACTUM, DABO TIBI IUS: “Give Me the Facts, and I Will Give You the Law” — Scott Erik Stafne Questions Brazilian Jurists on the Fundamental Duties of Courts, Judicial Impartiality, and Equal Justice Under Law EROS ROBERTO GRAU, FORMER JUSTICE OF BRAZIL’S SUPREME FEDERAL COURT (STF): JURISDICTION, THE INTERPRETATION OF LAW, AND THE ROLE OF JUDGES IN APPLYING THE LAW TO THE FACTS.

DA MIHI FACTUM, DABO TIBI IUS: WITHOUT IMPARTIAL FACT-FINDING, THERE CAN BE NO EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW

“Give Me the Facts, and I Will Give You the Law” — Scott Erik Stafne Questions Brazilian Jurists on the Fundamental Duties of Courts, Judicial Impartiality, and Equal Justice Under Law

EROS ROBERTO GRAU, FORMER JUSTICE OF BRAZIL’S SUPREME FEDERAL COURT (STF): JURISDICTION, THE INTERPRETATION OF LAW, AND THE ROLE OF JUDGES IN APPLYING THE LAW TO THE FACTS.



GIVE ME THE FACTS, AND I WILL GIVE YOU THE LAW

This video features Scott Erik Stafne, a lawyer with 50 years of experience in the United States, speaking at an international meeting on October 4, 2026. He addresses the core principles of the judiciary and potential systemic issues.

Key takeaways include:

The fundamental role of courts: Stafne emphasizes that courts must act as impartial fact-finders—whether through judges or juries—to determine facts accurately and apply existing laws to reach a fair outcome (0:48–1:31).

Systemic concerns in the US: Based on his long career, particularly in mortgage and property law, he argues that some US courts are intentionally failing to perform these duties. He suggests that many judges have become dependent rather than independent in their decision-making (1:35–2:43).

International standards: He invokes international legal standards, including the Nuremberg Judges Trial and the 1948 human rights treaties, to frame his argument for natural justice (2:49–3:16).

Inquiry regarding Brazil: Stafne concludes by asking a Brazilian lawyer in the meeting whether similar systemic and structural problems exist within the Brazilian judiciary, distinguishing these from isolated or occasional judicial errors (3:39–4:42).

According to Scott Erik Stafne, the core function of an independent judiciary is to act as an unbiased fact-finder (0:52-1:17). This process involves two essential steps to ensure a fair trial:

Impartial Fact Determination: Courts must fairly and accurately establish the facts through judges or juries that are free from bias (1:02-1:17).
Application of Law: Once the facts are determined, the court must apply the existing laws to those specific facts to reach a conclusion (1:21-1:31).

Stafne argues that when courts fail to perform these functions, it is often because they have become dependent rather than independent, resulting in systemic failures where they purposefully decline to do the necessary fact-finding (2:01-2:43).
 

MINDD–COTG

International Constitutional Law & Human Rights

Are the Courts Fulfilling Their Constitutional Duty?

Scott Erik Stafne 's Question to Brazil in an International Legal Debate with Dr. Ronaldo Nobre , Marcia Almeida, Josevita Pontes, and Jayakrishnan Krishna Nair.

8 October 2026 · MINDD Editorial · Comparative Constitutional Analysis

“ Do you see that in the courts of Brazil, there may sometimes be a problem that is systemic and structural?”

Scott Erik Stafne · International Legal Discussion · 4 October 2026

What happens when courts fail to establish the facts, disregard the law governing those facts, or cease to function as independent and impartial courts?

This question reaches the foundations of constitutional government. 

The authority of courts depends not only on their institutional status, but also on the lawful performance of their constitutional responsibilities.

On 4 October 2026, Scott Erik Stafne , an American constitutional-law jurist and scholar drawing upon fifty years of professional legal experience, raised this fundamental question during an international legal discussion with Ronaldo Nobre , a Brazilian lawyer, jurist and professor of Civil Law and Civil Procedure, professionally active in Brazil's Federal District.

The discussion brought two legal traditions into direct dialogue: the American constitutional system, with its tradition of judicial review and common-law precedent, and the Brazilian constitutional order, grounded in the 1988 Constitution, codified civil procedure and express guarantees of judicial protection.

At the center of the exchange was a question transcending national boundaries: whether recurring failures in the administration of justice may reveal institutional problems rather than isolated judicial errors.

The inquiry also invites comparison with two important public statements by Eros Roberto Grau , jurist, professor and former Justice of Brazil's Supreme Federal Court, concerning the constitutional duty of judges to apply the Constitution and the law.

The analysis that follows examines the question through American and Brazilian constitutional jurisprudence, international human-rights instruments, and published research on public confidence in judicial institutions.

I. The International Legal Debate of 4 October 2026

The meeting brought together American and Brazilian participants concerned with constitutional supremacy, procedural justice, judicial integrity and independence, legal certainty, property rights, and access to effective remedies.

Scott Erik Stafne participated as an American constitutional-law scholar, with professional experience dating from 1976. He is the initiator, co-founder and Advocate of The Church of the Gardens.

Dr. Ronaldo Nobre contributed his experience as a Brazilian lawyer, jurist and professor of Civil Law and Civil Procedure, working in the Federal District.

The discussion also addressed the organization of international legal-education webinars, through which American and Brazilian professionals could examine their respective constitutional and procedural systems.

The participants did not necessarily share identical interpretations of every issue.

Scott expressly qualified his initial response to the preceding remarks before inviting the Brazilian legal professional to present his perspective.

Scott said:

What I'd like to hear is what the distinguished lawyer from Brazil, what his perspective is with regard to whether Brazil may have a problem.

 (0:21 - 0:36)

In the United States, where I think we have a problem is that courts don't appear to be doing what they're designed to do in certain cases.

 (0:37 - 4:43)

And when I say designed to do, I mean, and this is just, I think this is pretty well accepted around the world, but what I'm saying, what I believe is courts are supposed to act as fact finders, either through juries or through judges, and they're determined the facts fairly and accurately through fact finders, which are not biased. Then after the facts have been determined, the courts are to apply those laws which presently exist to those facts to determine what the outcome will be. In the United States, for example, in cases involving mortgages and the successors and assignments of mortgages, my experience in the last couple of decades or decade is that courts will not do the fact finding, and consequently, they won't apply the law.

 

And I have come to believe, based on 50 years of experience in practicing law, that they are doing that purposely, that it's it's not a mistake. It's because the courts are not independent because the judges or the fact finders have become dependent. And I know that mostly the law through American law, although I have done quite a bit of research and spoken with regard to the international standards for judicial recusal and what I believe to be the international public law standards for recusals since the Nuremberg judges trial and since the ratification of the 1948 treaty.

 

So that's where I am understanding we're coming from. Do you see that in the courts of Brazil, there may sometimes be a problem that is systemic and structural? Because I don't think a bad result here and there is, I don't think you can expect that you won't have it.

 

But I think mankind and humankind can expect and should expect that they have a right to natural justice as ordained through what is now what I believe the international way of adjudication. Am I saying, I sometimes don't speak clearly. 

Have I spoken clearly enough to make you understand what I'm trying to say?

Accordingly, statements made by different participants must be attributed to their respective speakers.

II. The Constitutional Function of Courts: Determining Facts and Applying Existing Law

Scott explained his understanding of the function of courts in a constitutional legal system.

“In the United States, where I think we have a problem, is that courts don't appear to be doing what they're designed to do in certain cases.” Scott Erik Stafne

Stafne emphasized that courts ordinarily determine facts through judges or juries and that factual determinations must be fair, accurate and impartial.

He then described the responsibility to apply the laws governing those facts:

“Then after the facts have been determined, the courts are to apply those laws which presently exist to those facts to determine what the outcome will be.”

Scott referred to his experience with American cases involving mortgages, successors to mortgage interests and assignments of mortgages.

He expressed concern that, in some proceedings, courts had failed to undertake the required factual inquiry and consequently had not applied the governing law.

He also expressed his personal assessment that some institutional failures could be related to deficiencies in judicial independence.

The responsibilities of judges and juries must also be understood within the applicable procedural framework: pleadings, discovery, summary judgment and trial involve different legal standards.

III. The Question to Brazil: Judicial Error or Structural Failure?

Stafne distinguished the possibility of an occasional incorrect judicial outcome from the possibility of recurring institutional deficiencies.

An unfavorable judgment, by itself, does not establish corruption or systemic failure.

A structural problem requires a more demanding inquiry: whether institutional arrangements or recurrent judicial practices prevent the ordinary operation of constitutional safeguards.

Such an inquiry must consider documented facts, procedural records, the allocation of judicial authority, the independence of adjudicators, the right of defense, and the availability of effective legal remedies.

The central issue is not whether courts sometimes err. It is whether the institutions responsible for correcting errors continue to perform their constitutional functions.

IV. Witnessing, Public Discernment and the Purpose of the Debate

During the meeting, Scott expressly redirected the discussion away from an exclusive examination of his own professional circumstances.

He explained that he wished to emphasize the role of a witness who presents facts and observations for others to examine.

“I want to be a witness so we can let the people be the judge.”

Scott also emphasized that people should be free to reach different conclusions after examining the facts.

He recognized the possibility of error in his own assessments and the importance of sincere disagreement.

His reflections included a Christian understanding of moral responsibility, especially love of God and love of one's neighbor.

These religious convictions form part of his personal explanation of witnessing.

The comparative legal analysis in this article, however, rests upon public constitutional norms, judicial precedents, procedural law, and international human-rights instruments.

V. Dr. Ronaldo Nobre: ​​Civil Law, Civil Procedure and Legal Certainty in Brazil

Dr. Ronaldo Nobre, a lawyer, jurist and professor of Civil Law and Civil Procedure, brought the perspective of Brazil's legal system to the international exchange.

His contribution addressed the importance of legal certainty, consistent judicial interpretation, and effective enforcement of constitutional and statutory guarantees.

The discussion included concerns about varying interpretations among judicial instances, procedural irregularities, legal uncertainty, and the protection of substantive rights.

These issues are particularly relevant in a legal system whose civil procedure is governed by a national code expressly subordinated to constitutional principles.

A question of constitutional supremacy

Scott also raised an important question: what happens when ordinary legislation or a procedural rule conflicts with the Constitution?

In Brazil, that issue involves constitutional review, the supremacy of the 1988 Constitution, the allocation of judicial competence, and the procedures available to challenge unconstitutional acts or legal provisions.

Scott additionally discussed changes he had observed concerning oral arguments in American courts.

He expressed concern about situations in which oral advocacy becomes discretionary and material arguments are not adequately addressed.

These observations provide a meaningful starting point for comparison with Brazil's constitutional duty to provide reasoned decisions, the guarantees of adversarial procedure and full defense, and Article 489 of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure.

VI. Eros Roberto Grau: The Judge Must Apply the Constitution and the Law

The reflections of former Supreme Federal Court Justice Eros Roberto Grau provide an independent Brazilian constitutional perspective on the duties of judges.

His statements are presented as independent sources for comparative jurisprudential analysis.

Video I — Constitutional Supremacy and the Limits of Personal Values



Eros Roberto Grau — original Portuguese video.

Original Portuguese transcription

"What is most important is that we establish the following: that law is positive law, founded on rules."

Principles are expressions of values, and each citizen may hold, according to their beliefs and discretion, these or those principles.

What is fundamental is that the Constitution be upheld and that the courts and judges, especially the Supreme Federal Court, apply the Constitution, not the values ​​of each individual.”

English translation

“What is most important is that we establish the following: law is positive law, grounded in rules. Principles express values, and each citizen may hold, according to their beliefs and judgment, this or that principle. What is fundamental is that the Constitution be complied with, and that courts and judges, especially the Supreme Federal Court, apply the Constitution, not each individual's personal values.”

Grau's statement emphasizes that the legitimacy of judicial action depends upon compliance with the Constitution and the legal order.

Judges must not substitute their personal preferences for the constitutional framework governing their decisions.

Video II — Judicial Prudence and the Absence of an Audience


Eros Roberto Grau — original Portuguese video.

Original Portuguese transcription

"The law is allographic in this sense. That is, the judge is the interpreter who transforms the text of the Constitution and the law into a legal norm and who makes the decision."

But in law, there is no audience, or at least there shouldn't be.

The judge is not there to produce aesthetic pleasure in anyone.

The judge is there to apply the Constitution or the law.

And there is no audience, he doesn't have to work for an audience, he has to be discreet, serene, prudent, because law is prudence, not an art.”

English translation

“Law is allographic in this sense. That is to say, the judge is the interpreter who transforms the text of the Constitution and legislation into a legal norm and makes the decision. But law has no audience, or at least it should not have one. The judge is not there to produce aesthetic pleasure for anyone. The judge is there to apply the Constitution or the law. There is no audience. The judge does not have to perform for an audience. The judge must be discreet, calm and prudent, because law is a matter of practical judgment, not an art.”

Grau's reference to the allographic nature of law recognizes the interpretative role of the judge.

It is not a theory of purely mechanical or literal application of legal texts.

Judicial interpretation is necessary, but it must remain within the constitutional and legal framework.

The comparative connection with Scott's observations concerns the duties of constitutional adjudication.

Eros Grau claims that judicial independence is intrinsically linked to the judges' obedience to the law . According to him, a democracy cannot exist without judges being, in practice, servants of the law, questioning the transformation of the Rule of Law into a "State of Judges" where this subordination to legal norms might be neglected.

https://www.youtube.com/live/_zbnO12z5Eg?is=vGryd1FrN3MPsEuH

The video presents a Master Lecture conducted by the renowned jurist and former Justice of the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF), Eros Grau, on the subject “The Interpretation of Law by Judges.” The lecture is organized by Estratégia Carreira Jurídica and moderated by Michael Procópio.

Main points addressed by Justice Eros Grau:

Distinction between text and norm: The professor emphasizes that the legislative branch produces the text (or normative provision), but it is the judge, as the authentic interpreter, who produces the legal norm when applying it to a concrete case (10:31–12:44).

Law as prudence: The lecturer argues that legal interpretation is not an exact science, but rather a form of prudence (practical wisdom), in the Aristotelian sense, aimed at finding the correct decision in each case (41:23–42:33).

Criticism of judicial activism and balancing: Eros Grau expresses concern about the current practice of courts replacing constitutional review with the “balancing of principles” or with the review of “reasonableness/proportionality,” which he considers a source of legal uncertainty (58:00–1:00:00).

The role of the judge: He maintains that the judge must be a “servant of the law” and that modern law is based on the objectivity of the law, rather than on the subjective pursuit of personal justice or public opinion (49:49–52:00).

At the end, the professor reinforces the importance of maintaining legal positivism as a safeguard for citizens’ legal certainty and answers questions from viewers about the future of the Supreme Federal Court.

VII. Constitutional Supremacy, Fact-Finding and Legal Interpretation

The classical maxim da mihi factum, dabo tibi ius — “Give me the facts, and I will give you the law” — expresses a fundamental distinction between the establishment of facts and the application of the governing law.

The related principle iura novit curia — “The court knows the law” — emphasizes the judicial responsibility to identify and apply applicable legal provisions.

Neither maxim eliminates the requirements of procedural fairness, adversarial participation, evidentiary standards or judicial impartiality.

The inscription on the United States Supreme Court building, “Equal Justice Under Law,” expresses an enduring constitutional aspiration.

In the United States, Article VI, Clause 2, establishes the supremacy of the federal Constitution.

In Brazil, the constitutional order likewise recognizes the supremacy of the Constitution and the limits it imposes on governmental authority.

VIII. Ten United States Supreme Court Precedents Relevant to the International Debate

1. Marbury v. Madison (1803)

5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137.

The decision established a foundational understanding of judicial review and the constitutional duty of courts to interpret and apply the law.

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

Full decision — Marbury v. Madison

2. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316.

This decision addresses constitutional interpretation, federal authority and the distribution of governmental powers.

“In considering this question, then, we must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding.”

Full decision — McCulloch v. Maryland

3. Tumey v. Ohio (1927)

273 U.S. 510.

The Supreme Court examined a judicial arrangement creating a financial interest in the outcome of adjudication.

Its constitutional importance concerns the objective requirements of an impartial tribunal.

Full decision — Tumey v. Ohio

4. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950)

339 U.S. 306.

The decision addresses adequate notice and the opportunity to participate in proceedings affecting protected interests.

It establishes an important due-process standard for procedures intended to inform interested parties.

Full decision — Mullane

5. In re Murchison (1955)

349 U.S. 133.

“A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.”

The decision addresses judicial impartiality and the incompatibility of certain judicial functions with the guarantees of due process.

Full decision — In re Murchison

6. Mathews v. Eldridge (1976)

424 U.S. 319.

The Supreme Court established a framework for evaluating procedural due-process requirements in the context of administrative benefits.

The analysis considers the affected private interest, the risk of erroneous deprivation, and the governmental interest.

The decision does not establish a universal entitlement to oral argument in every judicial proceeding.

Full decision — Mathews v. Eldridge

7. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. (1986)

477 U.S. 242.

This decision explains the judicial role in determining whether a genuine dispute of material fact requires trial.

“The judge's function is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter.”

Its relevance to Scott's observations concerns the limits of judicial fact-finding at the summary-judgment stage.

Full decision — Anderson v. Liberty Lobby

8. Boumediene v. Bush (2008)

553 U.S. 723.

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional protection of habeas corpus and the availability of meaningful judicial review.

Its comparative significance lies in the constitutional requirement that governmental authority remain subject to effective legal constraints.

Full decision — Boumediene v. Bush

9. Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. (2009)

556 U.S. 868.

The Supreme Court recognized that exceptional circumstances may create a constitutionally intolerable probability of judicial bias.

The case is particularly relevant to the objective assessment of judicial impartiality.

Full decision — Caperton

10. Williams v. Pennsylvania (2016)

579 U.S. 1.

The decision concerns judicial disqualification, prior prosecutorial participation and the constitutional consequences of a failure to recuse.

“An unconstitutional failure to recuse constitutes structural error.”

A structural constitutional error in an individual proceeding must not be confused with a factual determination that an entire judicial system suffers from systemic corruption.

Full decision — Williams v. Pennsylvania

IX. Brazil's Constitution and the Code of Civil Procedure

The Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil of 1988 provides guarantees directly relevant to the questions raised during the meeting.

Constitutional guarantees

Article 2: separation of powers.

Article 5, XXXV: access to judicial protection.

“a lei não excluirá da apreciação do Poder Judiciário lesão ou ameaça a direito;”

Article 5, XXXVI: protection of acquired rights, perfected legal acts and final judgments.

Article 5, LIV: due process of law.

“ninguém será privado da liberdade ou de seus bens sem o devido processo legal;”

Article 5, LV: adversarial procedure and full defense.

“aos litigantes, em processo judicial ou administrativo, e aos acusados em geral são assegurados o contraditório e ampla defesa, com os meios e recursos a ela inerentes;”

Article 93, IX: constitutional duty to provide reasons for judicial decisions.

Article 133: constitutional recognition of the lawyer's indispensable role in the administration of justice.

Article 1 of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure

The Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure expressly recognizes the Constitution as the normative foundation of civil adjudication.

“Art. 1º O processo civil será ordenado, disciplinado e interpretado conforme os valores e as normas fundamentais estabelecidos na Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil, observando-se as disposições deste Código.”

English translation:

“Article 1. Civil procedure shall be organized, regulated and interpreted in accordance with the fundamental values and norms established by the Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil, with due observance of the provisions of this Code.”

Other provisions of particular relevance include Article 10, concerning participation in the formation of judicial decisions; Article 370, concerning evidence; Article 371, requiring judicial assessment of the evidence and an explanation of the reasons supporting the decision; Article 373, concerning the burden of proof; and Article 489, §1, IV, concerning materially relevant arguments.

Together, these provisions establish the Brazilian procedural framework for analyzing factual determination, legal reasoning, adversarial participation, and effective defense.

X. Brazil's Supreme Federal Court: MS 23.452/RJ and Constitutional Control of Power

In Mandado de Segurança No. 23.452/RJ, Justice Celso de Mello examined constitutional limits on governmental authority.

The case concerned judicial review of acts of a parliamentary commission of inquiry.

The reasoning emphasizes that separation of powers must not become a shield for arbitrary or unconstitutional governmental conduct.

Selected original Portuguese excerpt

Read the selected passage from MS 23.452/RJ

A essência do postulado da divisão funcional do poder, além de derivar da necessidade de conter os excessos dos órgãos que compõem o aparelho de Estado, representa o princípio conservador das liberdades do cidadão e constitui o meio mais adequado para tornar efetivos e reais os direitos e garantias proclamados pela Constituição.

Esse princípio, que tem assento no art. 2º da Carta Política, não pode constituir e nem qualificar-se como um inaceitável manto protetor de comportamentos abusivos e arbitrários, por parte de qualquer agente do Poder Público ou de qualquer instituição estatal.

O Poder Judiciário, quando intervém para assegurar as franquias constitucionais e para garantir a integridade e a supremacia da Constituição, desempenha, de maneira plenamente legítima, as atribuições que lhe conferiu a própria Carta da República.

O regular exercício da função jurisdicional, por isso mesmo, desde que pautado pelo respeito à Constituição, não transgride o princípio da separação de poderes.

O CONTROLE DO PODER CONSTITUI UMA EXIGÊNCIA DE ORDEM POLÍTICO-JURÍDICA ESSENCIAL AO REGIME DEMOCRÁTICO.

Comparative constitutional significance

The decision recognizes constitutional limits on governmental authority and the legitimacy of judicial intervention to preserve constitutional guarantees.

Its reasoning is relevant to the broader principle that no branch of government enjoys unrestricted authority.

However, MS 23.452/RJ concerned parliamentary investigative powers.

It did not adjudicate a disciplinary case against judges or establish systemic judicial corruption.

XI. Reasoned Judicial Decisions: STF Theme 339

The Supreme Federal Court examined the constitutional requirement of reasoned judicial decisions in Theme 339 of its general-repercussion jurisprudence.

Leading case: AI 791.292 QO-RG/PE.

Rapporteur: Justice Gilmar Mendes.

Judgment: 23 June 2010.

Official thesis

“O art. 93, IX, da Constituição Federal exige que o acórdão ou decisão sejam fundamentados, ainda que sucintamente, sem determinar, contudo, o exame pormenorizado de cada uma das alegações ou provas.”

English translation

“Article 93, IX, of the Federal Constitution requires that judgments or decisions state reasons, even succinctly, without, however, requiring a detailed examination of every allegation or item of evidence.”

The precedent recognizes the constitutional duty to provide judicial reasons.

It does not require an exhaustive discussion of every allegation.

At the same time, Article 489, §1, IV, of the Code of Civil Procedure requires attention to arguments capable, in principle, of defeating the conclusion adopted.

These provisions must be interpreted together, particularly when evaluating the right of defense and the adequate consideration of material legal arguments.

Official STF source: https://portal.stf.jus.br/jurisprudenciaRepercussao/tema.asp?num=339

XII. Judicial Identity, Impartiality and the CNJ Decision of 26 May 2026

On 26 May 2026, Brazil's National Council of Justice examined issues involving the organization of a specialized judicial structure in Santa Catarina.

Proceeding: PCA 0005106-93.2025.2.00.0000.

The proceeding involved questions of judicial competence, the identification of responsible adjudicators, institutional organization, judicial independence, impartiality, and the judge-of-guarantees framework.

The comparative significance of these issues concerns the traceability of judicial authority, the allocation of competence, and the ability of litigants to identify the adjudicator responsible for a judicial act.

The CNJ, by majority, rejected the challenge and maintained the validity of the judicial structure.

A dissenting position disagreed with part of the majority's reasoning.

The proceeding is relevant to the international discussion because institutional transparency and judicial impartiality are central to effective due process.

It does not establish that comparable practices occurred in the American proceedings discussed by Scott.

XIII. International Human Rights: The Right to an Independent and Impartial Tribunal

Universal Declaration of Human Rights — Article 10

Article 10 recognizes the right to a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal.

The Declaration constitutes a foundational international human-rights instrument.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights — Article 14

Article 14 recognizes equality before courts and tribunals and the right to a fair and public hearing before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

Brazil promulgated the Covenant through Decree No. 592/1992.

American Convention on Human Rights — Articles 8 and 25

Article 8 establishes judicial guarantees, including the right to proceedings before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal.

Article 25 protects the right to effective judicial protection.

Brazil promulgated the Convention through Decree No. 678/1992.

The Convention's application must be examined according to each State's treaty obligations and the applicable jurisdictional framework.

United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary

The United Nations Basic Principles, adopted in 1985, provide international standards concerning the independence of the Judiciary.

Principle 2 addresses the duty to decide matters impartially, on the basis of facts and law.

This standard has direct comparative relevance to the function of courts described by Scott.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Apitz Barbera v. Venezuela

In Apitz Barbera et al. v. Venezuela, judgment of 5 August 2008, the Inter-American Court examined guarantees relating to judicial independence and impartiality.

The case forms part of the international jurisprudence concerning the institutional conditions necessary for fair adjudication.

XIV. Public Confidence and the Rule of Law: What the Data Reveal

Public confidence in judicial institutions is relevant to the legitimacy of constitutional government.

However, opinion surveys measure public perceptions, not judicial misconduct in individual cases.

The following indicators must be kept separate because they employ different questions, populations, methodologies and reference periods.

Figure 1 — Historical Confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court

Gallup · Percentage reporting a great deal or quite a lot of confidence · Selected historical years

1973 45%
1975 49%
1985 56%
1988 56%
2000 47%
2010 36%
2022 25%
2026 27%

Source: Gallup, Confidence in Institutions.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx

View the complete historical Gallup data table
Year High confidence
197345%
197549%
197745%
197945%
198146%
198342%
198451%
198556%
198654%
198752%
198856%
198946%
199047%
1991 February48%
1991 October39%
199343%
199442%
199544%
199645%
199750%
199850%
199949%
200047%
200150%
200250%
200347%
200446%
200541%
200640%
200734%
200832%
200939%
201036%
201137%
201237%
201334%
201430%
201532%
201636%
201740%
201837%
201938%
202040%
202136%
202225%
202327%
202430%
202527%
202627%

The historical Gallup series shows a decline from 49% high confidence in 1975 to 27% in 2026, a difference of 22 percentage points.

A separate Gallup survey published on 30 September 2026 reported 46% trust in the federal judicial branch and 34% approval of the Supreme Court's job performance.

These are different survey indicators and should not be treated as interchangeable.

Figure 2 — Public Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court

Pew Research Center · July 2026

Unfavorable
53%
Favorable
45%

Source: Pew Research Center, survey conducted 6–12 July 2026.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/07/30/favorable-views-of-supreme-court-remain-near-historic-low/

The Pew Research Center reported that 45% of American adults viewed the Supreme Court favorably, while 53% held an unfavorable opinion.

The survey involved 3,554 American adults.

The favorable percentage was 20 percentage points below the 65% recorded in April 2021.

Figure 3 — Confidence in Brazil's Supreme Federal Court

Datafolha · September 2026

No trust
48%
Some trust
35%
Much trust
14%

Source: Datafolha, 21 September 2026.
https://datafolha.folha.uol.com.br/opiniao-e-sociedade/2026/09/falta-de-confianca-no-stf-supera-partidos-e-congresso-e-e-a-mais-alta-ja-registrada.shtml

According to Datafolha, 48% of respondents reported no confidence in Brazil's Supreme Federal Court, while 35% expressed some confidence and 14% expressed a great deal of confidence.

The percentages do not total 100% because other responses and rounding are not separately represented.

A different Datafolha measurement reported 47% negative evaluation of the performance of STF justices, 31% regular evaluation, 18% positive evaluation, and 4% without an opinion.

Institutional confidence and performance evaluation are distinct measurements.

FGV Direito SP — ICJBrasil

The Judicial Confidence Index developed by FGV Direito SP provides additional historical information.

Reported confidence in the Judiciary declined from 34% in 2013 to 24% in 2017.

These figures represent historical measurements, not a continuous series extending to 2026.

World Justice Project — Rule of Law Index 2025

In the 2025 Rule of Law Index, Brazil occupied the following positions among 143 jurisdictions:

Indicator Brazil's position
Overall rule of law 78 / 143
Civil justice 77 / 143
Criminal justice 111 / 143

These indicators offer an international comparative perspective on the rule of law.

They do not identify individual judicial misconduct or establish that particular cases were decided unlawfully.

XV. Comparative Constitutional and International Legal Framework

Legal question United States Brazil International framework
Constitutional supremacy Marbury; McCulloch; U.S. Constitution, Article VI 1988 Constitution; CPC, Article 1 Rule of law and limitations on public power
Notice and participation Mullane; Mathews Constitution, Article 5, XXXV, LIV and LV; CPC, Article 10 ICCPR, Article 14; ACHR, Article 8
Facts and evidence Anderson v. Liberty Lobby CPC, Articles 370, 371 and 373 UN Basic Principles, Principle 2
Judicial impartiality Tumey; Murchison; Caperton; Williams Constitutional due process; judicial impediment and disqualification ICCPR, Article 14; ACHR, Article 8; Apitz Barbera
Reasoned decisions Constitutional and procedural standards applicable to each context Constitution, Article 93, IX; STF Theme 339; CPC, Article 489 Fair-hearing and effective-remedy guarantees
Control of public power Marbury; Boumediene Separation of powers; MS 23.452/RJ Effective judicial protection; ACHR, Article 25

XVI. The Question for Brazilian Lawyers, Scholars and Judges

The international debate provides an opportunity for lawyers, scholars, judges and citizens to examine the effective implementation of constitutional guarantees.

The relevant inquiry does not begin with the assumption that an entire judicial institution is corrupt.

It begins with verifiable facts.

Among the issues requiring examination are whether:

  1. Courts identify and examine facts according to applicable procedural rules.
  2. Parties receive legally adequate notice and meaningful opportunities to defend themselves.
  3. Judges apply the governing law and relevant constitutional provisions.
  4. Judicial decisions adequately address material legal arguments.
  5. Adjudicators remain independent and impartial.
  6. The identity and authority of responsible judges can be determined.
  7. Constitutionally established review mechanisms remain available and effective.
  8. Documented recurring defects indicate isolated mistakes or institutional problems requiring further investigation.

These questions can provide the foundation for the international educational webinars discussed during the meeting.

The objective should be to develop comparative legal understanding and encourage a documented, substantive discussion of constitutional adjudication.

XVII. Conclusion: Judicial Integrity and Constitutional Accountability

Scott Erik Stafne's question to Brazil raises a fundamental issue in constitutional law: whether the institutional operation of courts remains faithful to the duties assigned to them by the constitutional order.

His emphasis on impartial fact-finding, the application of existing law, and judicial independence provides a substantive starting point for comparative legal analysis.

Dr. Ronaldo Nobre's participation brought Brazilian civil and procedural law into the discussion, with particular attention to legal certainty and effective constitutional guarantees.

The independently recorded statements of Eros Grau reinforce the importance of judicial interpretation within the limits of the Constitution and the legal order.

The jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court provides constitutional standards concerning judicial review, due process, impartiality, factual disputes and effective remedies.

Brazil's Constitution, its Code of Civil Procedure, and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Federal Court establish corresponding domestic obligations.

International human-rights law recognizes the importance of independent and impartial tribunals for the effective protection of fundamental rights.

The question raised by Scott should therefore be approached through constitutional analysis, judicial precedent, documentary evidence, and meaningful international dialogue.

Judicial authority derives its constitutional legitimacy from the lawful exercise of jurisdiction, not merely from institutional position.

Independent adjudication requires impartiality, procedural fairness, attention to the facts, and the application of the governing law.

A disagreement with a judicial outcome is not sufficient to demonstrate a systemic failure.

But documented recurring failures of constitutional safeguards may justify a broader institutional inquiry.

That is the significance of Scott Erik Stafne's question to Brazil.

XVIII. Legal Authorities and Bibliographical References

The following bibliography identifies the constitutional, statutory, jurisprudential, international, statistical and audiovisual materials relevant to the analysis.

References are presented in an ABNT-oriented format with expanded URLs.

  1. BRASIL. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988. Brasília, DF: Presidência da República, 1988. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  2. BRASIL. Lei nº 13.105, de 16 de março de 2015. Código de Processo Civil. Brasília, DF: Presidência da República, 2015. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105.htm . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  3. BRASIL. SUPREMO TRIBUNAL FEDERAL. Mandado de Segurança nº 23.452/RJ. Relator: Ministro Celso de Mello. Tribunal Pleno. Judgment: 16 Sept. 1999. Publication: 12 May 2000. Available at: https://jurisprudencia.stf.jus.br/ . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  4. BRASIL. SUPREMO TRIBUNAL FEDERAL. AI 791.292 QO-RG/PE. Tema 339 da Repercussão Geral. Relator: Ministro Gilmar Mendes. Judgment: 23 June 2010. Available at: https://portal.stf.jus.br/jurisprudenciaRepercussao/tema.asp?num=339 . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  5. BRASIL. CONSELHO NACIONAL DE JUSTIÇA. Informativo de Jurisprudência nº 8/2026. PCA 0005106-93.2025.2.00.0000. Judgment: 26 May 2026. Available at: https://atos.cnj.jus.br/files/original190955202606036a207c035ef88.pdf . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  6. BRASIL. CONSELHO NACIONAL DE JUSTIÇA. CNJ valida estrutura de vara contra organizações criminosas em SC. Brasília, DF: CNJ, 2026. Available at: https://www.cnj.jus.br/cnj-valida-estrutura-de-vara-contra-organizacoes-criminosas-em-sc/ . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  7. BRASIL. Decreto nº 592, de 6 de julho de 1992. Promulgates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/1990-1994/d0592.htm . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  8. BRASIL. Decreto nº 678, de 6 de novembro de 1992. Promulgates the American Convention on Human Rights. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/d0678.htm . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  9. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. The Court and Constitutional Interpretation. Washington, DC: Supreme Court. Available at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  10. UNITED STATES CONGRESS. Constitution Annotated: Article VI, Clause 2. Washington, DC: United States Congress. Available at: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-6/clause-2/ . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  11. UNITED STATES. SUPREME COURT. Marbury v. Madison. 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/ . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  12. UNITED STATES. SUPREME COURT. McCulloch v. Maryland. 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/316/ . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  13. UNITED STATES. SUPREME COURT. Tumey v. Ohio. 273 U.S. 510 (1927). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/273/510/ . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  14. UNITED STATES. SUPREME COURT. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. 339 U.S. 306 (1950). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/339/306/ . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  15. UNITED STATES. SUPREME COURT. In re Murchison. 349 U.S. 133 (1955). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/349/133/ . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  16. UNITED STATES. SUPREME COURT. Mathews v. Eldridge. 424 U.S. 319 (1976). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/424/319/ . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  17. UNITED STATES. SUPREME COURT. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S. 242 (1986). Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/477/242 . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  18. UNITED STATES. SUPREME COURT. Boumediene v. Bush. 553 U.S. 723 (2008). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/553/723/ . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  19. UNITED STATES. SUPREME COURT. Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. 556 U.S. 868 (2009). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/556/868/ . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  20. UNITED STATES. SUPREME COURT. Williams v. Pennsylvania. 579 U.S. 1 (2016). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/579/15-5040/ . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  21. GALLUP. Confidence in Institutions: Historical Trends. Washington, DC: Gallup. Available at: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  22. GALLUP. JONES, Jeffrey M. U.S. Supreme Court Begins Term With Historically Low Ratings. 30 Sept. 2026. Available at: https://news.gallup.com/poll/715022/supreme-court-begins-term-historically-low-ratings.aspx . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  23. PEW RESEARCH CENTER. VAN GREEN, Ted. Favorable Views of Supreme Court Remain Near Historic Low. 30 July 2026. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/07/30/favorable-views-of-supreme-court-remain-near-historic-low/ . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  24. DATAFOLHA. Falta de confiança no STF supera Partidos e Congresso e é a mais alta já registrada. 21 Sept. 2026. Available at: https://datafolha.folha.uol.com.br/opiniao-e-sociedade/2026/09/falta-de-confianca-no-stf-supera-partidos-e-congresso-e-e-a-mais-alta-ja-registrada.shtml . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  25. DATAFOLHA. Recorde, avaliação negativa do STF atinge 47%. 28 Sept. 2026. Available at: https://datafolha.folha.uol.com.br/opiniao-e-sociedade/2026/09/recorde-avaliacao-negativa-do-stf-atinge-47.shtml . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  26. FUNDAÇÃO GETULIO VARGAS. DIREITO SP. Relatório ICJBrasil: primeiro semestre de 2017. São Paulo: FGV Direito SP, 2017. Available at: https://direitosp.fgv.br/sites/default/files/backup-d6/relatorio_icj_1sem2017.pdf . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  27. FUNDAÇÃO GETULIO VARGAS. DIREITO SP. ICJBrasil detecta queda da confiança da população em quase todas as instituições brasileiras em 2017. São Paulo: FGV Direito SP, 2017. Available at: https://direitosp.fgv.br/noticia/icjbrasil-detecta-queda-confianca-populacao-quase-todas-instituicoes-brasileiras-2017 . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  28. WORLD JUSTICE PROJECT. WJP Rule of Law Index 2025: Brazil. Washington, DC: World Justice Project, 2025. Available at: https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/country/Brazil . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  29. UNITED NATIONS. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Paris: United Nations, 1948. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  30. UNITED NATIONS. Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. Adopted in 1985. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/basic-principles-independence-judiciary
  31. CORTE INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOS. Caso Apitz Barbera y otros vs. Venezuela. Sentencia de 5 de agosto de 2008. Serie C, no. 182. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_182_esp.pdf
  32. CORTE INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOS. Caso Apitz Barbera y otros vs. Venezuela: ficha técnica. San José: Corte IDH, 2008. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/ver_ficha_tecnica.cfm?lang=pt&nId_Ficha=295 . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  33. EROS GRAU. STF tem que cumprir e fazer cumprir a Constituição. YouTube Shorts. Audiovisual excerpt. Publication date not ascertained. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-mGh9A3UrfE . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  34. EROS GRAU. Juiz está lá para aplicar a Constituição. YouTube Shorts. Audiovisual excerpt. Publication date not ascertained. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/eUDxE04xbLQ . Accessed: 8 Oct. 2026.
  35. MINDD–COTG. International Zoom Discussion: Scott Erik Stafne, Dr. Ronaldo Nobre and participants. Audiovisual meeting and time-coded transcripts. 4 October 2026. Unpublished documentary record made available to the editorial team. No public URL.

MINDD–COTG

INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND JUDICIAL INTEGRITY

THE CHURCH OF THE GARDENS

Independent international constitutional and human-rights analysis.

8 October 2026

Constitutional Supremacy · Judicial Independence · Due Process · Human Dignity · Effective Access to Justice