✓ verbatim from the press
The Supreme Court (STF) has two votes to overturn changes to the Clean Record Law approved by Congress in 2025. Justice Luiz Fux followed on Tuesday (26) the vote of rapporteur Justice Cármen Lúcia for the unconstitutionality of Complementary Law 219/2025, which modified the ineligibility periods for convicted politicians. The judgment of Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) 7881, filed by the Sustainability Network party, takes place in virtual plenary until Friday (29). ✓
Press quotes (1)
"A Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade (ADI) 7881 foi distribuída à ministra Cármen Lúcia."
The questioned law unified the ineligibility period to eight years, counted from conviction by a collegiate body or from the decision determining loss of elected office, instead of after serving the sentence. The law also established a maximum ceiling of 12 years total ineligibility for accumulated convictions, regardless of the number of cases. The changes would benefit politicians like former governors Anthony Garotinho and José Roberto Arruda and former congressman Eduardo Cunha. ✓
Press quotes (2)
"o prazo de inelegibilidade de oito anos passará a ser contado a partir da decisão que decretar a perda do mandato; da condenação em decisão transitada em julgado ou proferida por órgão judicial colegiado ou ainda da renúncia ao cargo eletivo."
"Foi estabelecido o prazo máximo de 12 anos para condenações por inelegibilidade, mesmo em casos de condenações sucessivas em processos diferentes."
According to Justice Cármen Lúcia, the changes create a "normative limbo" that would function as a "safe conduct" for convicted politicians, allowing them to recover political rights even before serving their sentences. The rapporteur argued that the changes "hollow out" the protection of administrative probity and represent "patent regression". The Attorney General's Office (AGU) defended the changes in a brief to the STF, arguing that the text preserved the eight-year period and "improved the system's rationality". ✓
Press quotes (2)
"Não pode participar da vida política-eleitoral quem descumpre as normas constitucionais e legais, não se compatibilizando com a Constituição brasileira o estabelecimento de espaço de afastamento da obrigação de cumprir o Direito quem o queira fazer desobedecendo a Constituição em seus princípios apenas porque, tendo uma vez sido incluído no ambiente das inelegibilidade, tenha se inserido num limbo normativo, inalcançável em novas condutas e respostas judiciais, teria obtido um salvo conduto para o futuro com qualquer prática que lhe viesse a ser imposta depois do cumprimento do prazo máximo fixado"
"A Advocacia-Geral da União (AGU) encaminhou ao STF um parecer em defesa das alterações realizadas. Na ocasião, o órgão do governo argumentou que o texto preservou o prazo de oito anos e "aprimorou a racionalidade do sistema"."
Eight justices still need to vote in the virtual plenary. If any justice presents a request for emphasis, the judgment moves to the physical plenary and vote counting restarts. The result will define whether the previous Clean Record Law rules return for the 2026 elections. ✓
Press quotes (1)
"Caso algum ministro apresente pedido de destaque, o processo migra para o plenário físico e a contagem de votos recomeça do zero."
Luiz Fux voted following Cármen Lúcia for unconstitutionality of the changes
The judgment takes place in virtual plenary until Friday
Covered by only some sources, or where the accounts diverge.
Covered by only some sources (2)
Sustainability Network based the action on argument of violation of bicameralism principle
Conflicting versions (1)
Maximum ceiling of ineligibility established by the new law
-
What was the specific doctrinal reasoning applied by Cármen Lúcia and Fux to declare the changes unconstitutional?
Why it's still unknown: The complete votes of the justices were not disclosed; only summaries of positions were reported by the press
-
How will the other eight STF justices vote?
Why it's still unknown: The virtual plenary judgment continues until Friday (29), and the other justices have not yet expressed their positions
-
What was the specific position of the Attorney General's Office (PGR) on the changes?
Why it's still unknown: Sources mention only the AGU position, without detailing the PGR's manifestation in the case
-
How many politicians would be directly affected by the STF decision?
Why it's still unknown: Sources cite only specific examples (Garotinho, Cunha, Arruda) without quantifying the total universe of those affected