Abstract
This paper provides an account of the Ellwanger case as a transformative moment in how Supreme Federal Court (STF) judges conceive of and justify their role in the Brazilian democracy. Throughout the 90s, the Supreme Court had been overall self-restrained and had not invested in building an agenda of fundamental rights. In this sense, in contrast to high courts in other recent democracies in the same period, the court did not seize upon the “new constitutional beginning” of 1988 to expand its legitimacy. In the transformation from that self-restrained court to the more active one we have today, the Ellwanger case, decided in 2003, is a turning point in the narrative adopted by the STF judges. During that long decision-making process, the court fully articulated, for the first time, a vision of itself as the local representative of a global mission: protecting the rights of socially or politically vulnerable individuals or groups. Judge Celso de Mello’s opinion, in particular, clearly contrasts the “old” STF from the 90s with the “new” proposed role, thus allowing the court to reposition itself – in its discourse, although not necessarily in its actual decision-making – primarily as a protector of fundamental rights.
Keywords:
Supreme Federal Court; Constitutional Courts; Ellwanger case; Legitimacy; Fundamental rights