1) Introduction: Fux's vote, in one sentence
Fux's vote opened a notable divergence in the First Chamber of the Supreme Court: the minister voted for the partial annulment of the case against Jair Bolsonaro, questioning the court's jurisdiction to try those who no longer hold public office and acquitting the case in the case of organized crime. This position reshapes the political and judicial landscape.
2) Brief context of the trial and accusation
You are following a trial accusing Bolsonaro and seven close associates of various crimes linked to the January 2023 seizure of power: attempted coup d'état, violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, armed criminal organization, and aggravated damage to public and historical heritage. The rapporteur, Alexandre de Moraes, and Justice Flávio Dino had voted in favor of the conviction before Fux's intervention.
3) What did Fux say and why did he vote for the annulment? (legal analysis)
In his intervention, Fux argued that the Supreme Court lacked full jurisdiction to try former officials who no longer hold office, and that, had the case been heard before the Court, the case should have been heard before the full Court and not the First Chamber. He also argued that the accusation of "armed criminal organization" was not sufficiently substantiated in the case file and that some evidence was submitted late or in bulk, which is detrimental to the defense. This combination of arguments led to his vote for nullity and the acquittal on that specific charge. Fux's legal reasoning is based on the principles of jurisdiction, due process, and criminal classification.
4) What was acquitted and what remains to be resolved? (Charges and nuances)
Fux voted to acquit the defendants of organized crime—arguing insufficient evidence to justify that charge—and proposed the annulment of parts of the proceedings on grounds of jurisdiction. However, other charges—such as attempted coup or aggravated damages—are still being reviewed by the court and could receive different votes from the other judges. In other words, an acquittal on one count does not imply an acquittal on all counts, and the final sentence will depend on the overall outcome of the votes.
5) How the correlation of votes in the First Chamber of the STF changes
Before Fux's vote, Moraes and Flávio Dino had expressed their support for conviction; with Fux dissenting, the score was 2-1 in favor of conviction on some aspects of the case. Cármen Lúcia and Cristiano Zanin's votes are still pending; three votes would form a majority. Your interpretation should be tactical: each judge can rule by differentiating between crimes, aggravating circumstances, and sentences, and Fux's proposal introduces arguments that the defense can use in subsequent proceedings.
6) Political and social implications of Fux's vote
Fux's vote has already generated political and social reactions: Bolsonaro supporters celebrated the dissent, while sectors calling for sanctions see his stance as a setback. In the public arena, the debate shifted from the materiality of the events—the invasions and damages—to procedural issues: jurisdiction, evidence, and guarantees of defense. In institutional terms, the difference between interpreting an act as a protest or an organized conspiracy is what defines the severity of the penalties and the judicial precedent.
7) What you can expect in the next few hours and how to follow the process
I followed the outcome closely, paying close attention to the following elements: the remaining votes (Cármen Lúcia and Cristiano Zanin), the arguments regarding attempted coup and aggravated damages, and any additional measures (imprisonment, fines, or disqualification). Furthermore, it is likely that the parties will announce appeals, and the defense strategy will attempt to capitalize on Fux's arguments in higher courts or in requests for partial annulment.
