The Brazilian Supreme Court has found itself in a significant reputational crisis, especially after its crucial role in defending democracy against its opponents. Questions are now being raised about whether this crisis can be overcome, or if it signifies the exhaustion of the current 'supremocratic' model where the Court holds excessive centrality in political discourse. Historically, the Supreme Court has been the go-to institution for resolving major political and moral disputes, often stepping into roles that may surpass its intended judicial functions.

The turning point for the Court came with the 'mensalão' trial, which marked its emergence from the background to take on powerful political figures in criminal cases. This shift has only intensified since 2013, as Brazil's political crisis deepens and elected representatives struggle to build consensus. With growing demands on the Court to arbitrate in conflicts, its role has expanded beyond judicial evaluations, essentially making it an unwitting political actor in the country's governance.

As the judiciary continues to be called upon to mediate and resolve complex societal conflicts, the implications for its reputation and independence are significant. Critics argue that this has led to a dilution of the principle of separation of powers, while supporters view the Court as a necessary arbiter in an increasingly chaotic political environment. The future of Brazil’s democracy may hinge on the Court’s ability to navigate these challenges without further alienating public confidence or overstepping its judicial mandate.