Brazilian Judges Union Demands Supreme Court Dismantle 'Wall of Privileges' Between Hierarchy Levels

Brazil's Judges Union (Sindmagis), formally established in January 2026, has issued an open letter to Supreme Court President Luiz Edson Fachin demanding the elimination of what it describes as a 'wall of privileges' separating the judiciary's leadership from its base. The union invokes the metaphor of the Berlin Wall to illustrate the structural division it perceives within the Brazilian judiciary, arguing that lower-court judges operate under stringent oversight while senior justices function with minimal accountability.

The union contends that career judges face severe productivity demands, inadequate resources, and shame over institutional disparities, while the judiciary's upper echelons operate under opaque rules and appear insulated from rigorous scrutiny. The organization asserts that lower-court judges answer to the National Justice Council (CNJ) with inflexible standards and harsh penalties, whereas senior judges benefit from what it terms 'barriers of intangibility' that shield them from similar oversight. The union alleges judges have experienced a devastating 56 percent loss in purchasing power since 2004, while the Brazilian state's revenue is projected to reach a record 3.1 trillion reais in 2026.

Led by Judge Cyntia Cordeiro Santos of the Fifth Region Labor Court in Bahia, Sindmagis demands a unified career structure and calls for ending what it describes as a 'double standard of morality.' The union specifically criticizes recent scandals involving the Supreme Court, including references to lavish events sponsored by major economic groups where judges and litigants with billions at stake interact socially, and allegations regarding million-real contracts awarded through private institutes connected to senior justices.

The union frames its grievances as a response to what it terms 'inverse constitutional mutation,' claiming the Supreme Court portrays career judges as moral transgressors or 'gangsters' and uses them as scapegoats for fiscal populism. The leadership notes that Fachin is viewed as 'a decent and correct man' facing internal difficulties, yet the organization states it will not accept what it characterizes as an immoral narrative and will not permit the removal of essential judicial guarantees. The Supreme Court has not yet responded to the letter.