In 2025, the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil ruled on a criminal case concerning the 2022–2023 Brazilian coup plot, which followed the election win of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva against Jair Bolsonaro. The defendants—including the former president Bolsonaro—were convicted in a 4–1 vote for participation in an armed criminal organization, attempted violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, attempted coup d'état, qualified damage, and deterioration of protected heritage property.
Background
During and after the 2022 Brazilian general election, a network of members of former president Jair Bolsonaro's government and of the Brazilian Armed Forces allegedly planned to subvert the transition of power to newly elected president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, arrest Supreme Federal Court (STF) justice Alexandre de Moraes and Federal Senate president Rodrigo Pacheco, and shut down several government institutions, such as the National Congress, the Superior Electoral Court and the STF, in an attempt to keep Bolsonaro in power and consolidate his control over the federal government. The plans, evidence, and individuals involved in planning a coup d'état were gradually revealed in investigations conducted by public agencies and the press in 2023 and 2024.
After the 8 January Brasília attacks, more than 1,400 people were charged for their alleged role in the riots. Valdemar Costa Neto, head of the Liberal Party, and three aides to Bolsonaro were arrested on 8 February 2024. On 21 November 2024, the Federal Police formally accused Bolsonaro and 36 people of an attempt to overthrow Brazil's democratic institutions, including a plot to assassinate Lula, Vice President-elect Geraldo Alckmin and Supreme Court Justice Moraes. On 14 December 2024, Bolsonaro's 2022 running mate and former Chief of Staff, General Walter Braga Netto, was arrested. On 18 February 2025, Prosecutor General Paulo Gonet formally indicted Bolsonaro and 34 others for an attempted coup d'état. On 26 March, the Supreme Court accepted the Prosecutor General's complaint and considered Bolsonaro and seven other allies as defendants in the case.
Beginning in July 2025, the Trump administration in the United States began openly clashing with Brazilian authorities, claiming Bolsonaro was the victim of a witch hunt without presenting solid grounds. As a result, the US imposed a 50% tariff on all Brazilian imports, revoked the visas of eight Brazilian Supreme Court justices, and applied the Magnitsky Act against Moraes. In response, Brazil's president Lula published an article in The New York Times saying that he wants to "establish an open and frank dialogue with the president of the United States", but stated that "Brazilian democracy and sovereignty are non-negotiable". Following subsequent diplomatic contacts between Lula and Trump, tensions gradually eased toward the end of 2025, with the Trump administration lifting the additional tariffs and revoking the sanctions against Moraes. On 16 June 2026, the Supreme Court sentenced Eduardo Bolsonaro to 4 years and 2 months in prison for coercion in judicial proceedings after finding that he had lobbied the Trump administration to impose sanctions aimed at influencing the trial of his father, Jair Bolsonaro.
Votes
Alexandre de Moraes
On 9 September 2025, justice Alexandre de Moraes, as rapporteur, started the voting process during a 5-hour reading of his decision, voting to convict all defendants. Moraes argued the coup plot began in June 2021, starting when former president Jair Bolsonaro and his allies intentionally attempted to undermine the country's electronic voting system, laying the groundwork for claims of election fraud and a coup if Bolsonaro lost the 2022 presidential election. After losing the election, Moraes sees evidence of Bolsonaro attempting to convince leaders of the armed forces to engage in a military intervention to prevent recently elected Lula from taking power, though failing to gather enough support. Additionally, Moraes points to a plan to assassinate himself, president-elect Lula and vice-president-elect Geraldo Alckmin, which had been aborted at the last minute. Failing to gather military support, a week after Lula's inauguration as president, Bolsonaro supporters invaded the presidential palace and other government buildings in the 8 January attacks, incited by Bolsonaro himself, Moraes argued.
In his vote, Moraes delineated 13 actions and decisions by the defendants which, he argued, constituted a criminal organization in coordinated and premeditated effort to revert the results of the 2022 presidential election and keep Bolsonaro in power. Moraes was lauded for his vote, for narrating the chronology of events years prior to the 8 January attacks which laid the groundwork for it.
Flávio Dino
In the afternoon of 9 September 2025, justice Flávio Dino concurred with the decision, though arguing that some defendants had a higher level of culpability than others, supporting sentencing accordingly. The justice also dismissed claims that the Court was acting in an authoritarian or tyrannical manner or engaging in judicial activism, and poked fun at the recent diplomatic animosity from the United States regarding the case: "do people believe that a tweet from a foreign government's authority will change a ruling of the Court? Does anyone think that a credit card or Mickey are going to change the ruling of the Court?".
Luiz Fux
On 10 September 2025, justice Luiz Fux dissented, voting to annul the case on multiple accounts. Fux's vote reading lasted over 10 hours, the third longest in the Court's history, during which he argued, among other things, that:
- the Supreme Federal Court did not have the jurisdiction to convict the defendants, as they no longer held office at the time of the trial and, thus, would not be subject to privileged forum; as such, that the Court was "absolutely not competent" to rule this case;
- even if the Court was to have jurisdiction over the case, the defendants should be tried by the full Court (of 11 justices) and not the 5 member "First Class" panel;
- the Ação Penal itself should be annulled, because the defense was not given enough time to prepare due to the great amount of documents submitted as evidence;
- an attempted coup conviction is meant to punish "conduct that deliberately leads the nation to authoritarian regime (...) with the effective capability to attain that objective in all its necessary aspects" – which would not apply in this case;
- the crime of attempted coup, as defined in the penal code, should not apply to self-coups;
- Bolsonaro only "considered" measures to remain in power, but "nothing happened", and that would not be enough to convict the former president;
- the defendants could not be punished for the actions of third-parties in the 8 January attacks;
- the crime of "participation in an armed criminal organization" requires, among other things, a clear organizational structure, roles attributed to the organization's members and the goal of obtaining some form of advantage through illicit means, which would not apply to any of the defendants;
- the crimes of "attempted violent abolition of the democratic rule of law" and "attempted coup d'état" are the same penal type, and thus only one, if any, should apply.
Fux voted to convict Mauro Cid and Walter Braga Netto for the crime of attempted violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, but to acquit them of all others. Alongside Moraes and Dino's votes, a majority was then formed in the Court to convict these defendants for that crime. Fux voted to acquit the other defendants, including Jair Bolsonaro, and to dismiss the case against Alexandre Ramagem.
Criticism
Following Fux's vote, the justice was criticized for a perceived partiality: when ruling against the rioters of the 8 January attacks, Fux convicted hundreds of defendants without bringing up any of the points argued for in this case, including the supposed lack of jurisdiction of the Court or requirements for what constitutes a criminal organization. This raises an apparent contradiction: the justice seemingly believes the Court had jurisdiction over ordinary citizens, but not when ruling over what are deemed to be the figureheads of the movement. Further, since March 2024 it has been the Court's understanding that it holds jurisdiction to rule on cases of people who, at the time of committing a crime, held office.
Moreover, among the arguments for the annulment of the case, Fux cited Operation Car Wash, which had convicted Lula but was later overturned in the Court for having been tried in a lower, incorrect jurisdiction. However, at the time, Fux voted against overturning the conviction, arguing that annulling the decision would be a formality that did not justify invalidating the sentencing, as part of a dissenting 3 that lost to 8 concurring justices. Anticipating criticism, during his vote, Fux stated that "to change one's understanding is to evolve" and that "the law is not a museum of principles; it is in constant mutation".
Cármen Lúcia
On 11 September 2025, justice Cármen Lúcia concurred with the rapporteur. Lúcia considered that the attorney's office had shown there had been a collection of measures formulated and executed with the goal of bringing radicalization to the social and political spheres, aiming to fabricate a crisis that would set the stage for a coup. She further noted that the attempt of a coup is self-evidently what the law punishes, as if it is otherwise successful, there would no longer be anyone there to judge it.
Cristiano Zanin
Following justice Cármen Lúcia's vote, on 11 September 2025, justice Cristiano Zanin concurred with the rapporteur, voting to convict all defendants. Zanin argued that there was an organized, hierarchical structure with assigned roles and an aim to keep Bolsonaro in power through illicit means, meeting the definition previously described by Fux for the crime of participation in an armed criminal organization. Had justice Zanin dissented, most defendants (save for Cid and Netto) would have a 3–2 decision, allowing for an appeal that, if accepted, would put the conviction up for a vote at the plenary of the Court, with all 11 justices.
Punishment
On 11 September 2025, following the votes for convictions, the justices voted to sentence each of the defendants. They were decided as follows:
Furthermore, as Ramagem held the office as a member of the Chamber of Deputies at the time of the trial and his sentence exceeded the maximum of permitted absences (120 days), he was removed from office. All defendants were also prohibited from holding any elected office for 8 years after serving their sentences, in accordance with the Ficha Limpa law.
High Court decision
Group 1: Leadership and Command
The trial of Group 1 took place between 2–11 September 2025 before the First Panel of the Supreme Federal Court and resulted in the conviction of all the 8 defendants. On 25 November, Justice Alexandre de Moraes ruled that the second set of appeals filed by the defense was not admissible, declared the case to have reached res judicata and ordered the beginning of the enforcement of the prison sentence for all the defendants.
Group 2: Management of Operation Actions
The trial of Group 2 (AP 2693) was held between 9–16 December 2025 and resulted in the conviction of 5 of the 6 defendants, with only Fernando de Sousa Oliveira being acquitted.