On Monday, July 21, 2025, the First Chamber of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) confirmed, by a 4-1 vote, Minister Alexandre de Moraes’ decision imposing restrictive measures on former President Jair Bolsonaro. The measures, including an ankle monitor, nighttime house arrest, and a ban on contact with foreign authorities, were set due to alleged crimes of coercion, obstruction of justice, and attacks on national sovereignty. The vote took place in the virtual plenary, with Minister Luiz Fux as the sole dissenter. The measures stem from Federal Police (PF) and Attorney General’s Office (PGR) investigations, which pointed to attempts by Bolsonaro and his son, Eduardo, to interfere with the STF through negotiations with U.S. authorities.
The ruling marks a critical moment in the former president’s trajectory, as he faces accusations tied to the 2022 coup plot. The measures aim to prevent potential flight risks and ensure ongoing investigations. The judgment, finalized at 11:59 p.m. on July 21, underscores the STF’s role in defending sovereignty and judicial independence.
The restrictions imposed on Bolsonaro include:
- Wearing an electronic ankle monitor for constant tracking.
- House arrest from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. on weekdays and all weekend.
- Prohibition on contacting ambassadors, diplomats, or other investigated individuals.
- Ban on using social media, directly or through third parties.
Details of the STF’s decision
The STF’s First Chamber, composed of five justices, reviewed Moraes’ ruling in a virtual session starting July 18. Moraes, the case’s rapporteur, justified the measures based on evidence that Jair Bolsonaro and his son, Congressman Eduardo Bolsonaro, attempted to pressure the STF through international contacts. The Federal Police found that both sought to influence U.S. authorities to impose sanctions on Brazilian officials, aiming to interfere with Criminal Action 2668, which investigates the coup attempt.
Justices Flávio Dino, Cristiano Zanin, and Cármen Lúcia sided with Moraes, forming the majority to uphold the restrictions. Dino highlighted the severity of the actions, describing them as an attempt to “hijack” the national economy to pressure the STF. Cármen Lúcia noted that Bolsonaro and Eduardo’s social media posts showed clear efforts to obstruct the case. Zanin, the Chamber’s president, also supported the measures without detailing his reasoning in the virtual system.
Luiz Fux, the only dissenter, argued that the measures were disproportionate and lacked solid evidence of flight risk. In his vote, he stated that the restrictions curtail fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression and movement, without clear justification. Despite his dissent, the 4-1 vote ensured the measures remained in place.
Background of the investigation
The restrictive measures stem from an inquiry into actions by Bolsonaro and Eduardo to influence the STF. The PF identified attempts to engage U.S. authorities, including statements by U.S. President Donald Trump about a supposed “witch hunt” against Bolsonaro. These moves were seen as efforts to pressure the Brazilian Judiciary and obstruct justice.
The crimes cited by the STF include:
- Coercion in the course of a proceeding (Article 344 of the Penal Code).
- Obstruction of investigations involving organized crime (Article 2, §1, Law 12.850/13).
- Violent abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law (Article 359-L of the Penal Code).
The PGR emphasized the need for the measures, citing the risk of Bolsonaro seeking asylum in embassies or fleeing the country. During the PF’s July 18 operation, authorities seized US$14,000, R$8,000 in cash, and a hidden flash drive in a bathroom at Bolsonaro’s residence, heightening suspicions of potential escape plans.
Reactions to the ruling
The STF’s decision sparked immediate reactions. Bolsonaro’s defense team, consisting of lawyers Celso Sanchez Vilardi, Paulo Amador da Cunha Bueno, and Daniel Bettamio Tesser, called the measures “severe” and “unprecedented.” In a statement, they claimed Bolsonaro has always complied with judicial orders and questioned the ban on contact with Eduardo, describing it as a violation of a “natural and sacred right.” The defense also criticized the lack of clear evidence of flight risk.
Opposition lawmakers, such as Senators Izalci Lucas and Rogério Marinho of the PL party, issued statements labeling the measures as “political persecution disguised as judicial action.” They argue the restrictions aim to silence Bolsonaro, a key opposition leader. Conversely, government supporters praised the measures as reinforcing judicial independence and national sovereignty.
Bolsonaro, upon leaving the Brasília Penitentiary Administration Office where the ankle monitor was fitted, told the press the measure was a “supreme humiliation.” He denied any plans to flee and insisted the accusations were baseless, vowing to remain in Brazil to face the process.
Impact of measures on Bolsonaro’s routine
The restrictions significantly alter the former president’s daily life. House arrest limits his participation in public events, while the social media ban hampers his primary communication tool with supporters. The ankle monitor, installed on July 18, tracks his movements, ensuring he remains in Brasília.
The measures also prohibit contact with other investigated individuals, including his sons Eduardo and Carlos Bolsonaro, prompting criticism from Eduardo, who called the restriction an attack on family ties. The ban on approaching embassies and diplomats aims to prevent further international moves that could hinder investigations.
Key impacts of the restrictions:
- Limited attendance at political and social events.
- Inability to use digital platforms for public statements.
- Constant monitoring via electronic ankle monitor.
- Isolation from investigated allies, including family members.
Next steps in the case
The First Chamber’s ruling upheld Moraes’ decision, but Criminal Action 2668, investigating the coup plot, continues. The PGR has requested convictions for Bolsonaro and seven other defendants for crimes tied to the 2022 election aftermath. The defense teams will respond before the STF sets a date for the final trial, which will determine Bolsonaro’s conviction or acquittal.
Moraes also set a deadline for Bolsonaro’s defense to explain recent statements, including a Congress speech where he displayed the ankle monitor. The minister warned that violating the social media ban, even indirectly, could lead to preventive detention.
Recent case timeline:
- July 18: Moraes issues restrictive measures; PF conducts search operation.
- July 18–21: First Chamber reviews ruling in virtual plenary.
- July 21: Fux dissents, but majority upholds measures.
- Coming days: Defense must clarify Bolsonaro’s Congress remarks.
International repercussions
Bolsonaro and Eduardo’s U.S. contacts, including Trump’s statements, added an international dimension to the case. The STF’s ruling was seen as a firm response to attempts at foreign interference in Brazil’s Judiciary. The U.S. embassy’s suggestion of political persecution was countered by Moraes, who cited national sovereignty as non-negotiable.
Trump’s “witch hunt” remarks and threats of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods were viewed as undue pressure. The STF emphasized that such actions constitute an attack on sovereignty, justifying the measures against Bolsonaro.
Key international developments:
- Trump’s statements supporting Bolsonaro.
- Eduardo Bolsonaro’s posts advocating U.S. sanctions.
- STF’s response affirming judicial independence.
Political implications in Brazil
The STF’s ruling reignites debates over political polarization. While Bolsonaro’s allies claim persecution, supporters of the measures argue they protect democracy and the rule of law. The social media ban and ankle monitor hinder Bolsonaro’s role as an opposition leader, especially ahead of the 2026 municipal elections.
The opposition, led by PL figures, plans to escalate criticism of the STF, while the Lula government seeks to leverage the episode to strengthen its institutional defense narrative. The clash between the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary branches opens a new chapter with potential to shape Brazil’s political landscape.