Justice Gilmar Mendes Avoids Regular Teaching So He Won’t Miss Class

This page is a translation of the original Portuguese text, provided for convenience. It deals with Brazilian law. If there is any discrepancy, the Portuguese version prevails. Read the original in Portuguese

During a session of Brazil’s Supreme Court, its longest-serving justice explained that he gave up fixed teaching duties so he would not risk being called an absentee professor given his heavy schedule.

Remarks Made in the Plenary

During the plenary session held on the morning of Thursday, April 16, Justice Gilmar Mendes briefly interrupted the legal debate to make a personal observation about his relationship with teaching. He said he avoids taking on a fixed schedule of classes at law schools precisely because he believes that teaching regularly requires constant presence, commitment to the academic calendar, and a level of availability that he could hardly offer while sitting on the highest bench of the Brazilian Judiciary.

The comment came up during an exchange among colleagues, in a relaxed tone, but it brought to the surface a legitimate concern shared by many judges who combine judicial duties with academic work. The senior justice’s remarks showed a deliberate care for the intellectual and ethical reputation that surrounds the classroom, which he considers a space that demands full commitment to students and to the schedules of educational institutions.

This stance is rare among prominent public figures, who often keep formal ties to universities without necessarily honoring the attendance those ties require. By stating his decision to his colleagues and before the plenary cameras, the senior justice laid out a personal standard of consistency between the office he formally holds and the practical effort it demands day to day.

A Story About a Politician

To reinforce his point, the justice recounted a story he had heard years ago about a politician who was listed as a professor at a law school but rarely showed up to teach. According to the account, the students themselves improvised a kind of symbolic prize, offering an economy car as a trophy to anyone who could actually attend a class taught by the lawmaker. The story, told with humor, illustrated exactly the kind of situation the senior justice wants to avoid in his own career.

Concluding the example, the justice stated categorically that he does not intend to repeat that pattern. His statement raises a pertinent question about the limits between high-profile public office and teaching on the side, especially in undergraduate programs, where the professor’s attendance is a structural element of students’ education. If you would like to better understand the court’s powers, you can read the overview of constitutional law previously published on this site.

I don’t want that to happen to me.

The anecdote also helped humanize a figure known for the formality of his votes and the technical density of his legal opinions. By turning to an everyday story, the senior justice brought a serious subject, professional integrity, closer to the plain language of the public that follows the sessions through the official broadcast and on social media.

Colleagues’ Reaction and the Mood in the Courtroom

The comment drew an immediate reaction from his peers. Justice Alexandre de Moraes jokingly asked whether the senior justice might be interested in receiving the very car mentioned in the anecdote, suggesting that his refusal to teach might be tied to some other kind of automotive ambition. The brief, lighthearted exchange momentarily broke the formality of the plenary, which is typical when the court judges complex issues.

Although short, the episode quickly drew attention from court watchers and legal professionals. Judges, lawyers, and university professors regularly debate in public the question of holding more than one position, especially when it involves public officials with overloaded institutional agendas. The senior justice’s remarks serve as an informal contribution to that discussion, openly acknowledging the reputational risks of keeping teaching commitments one has no real ability to fulfill.

Brazilian legal academia has a long tradition of welcoming justices and appellate judges as professors, and that relationship has historically fueled the national public debate on constitutional issues. At the same time, episodes like this one show that some members of the judiciary themselves recognize the need for prudence in taking on outside commitments, particularly when there is an institutional expectation of continuous performance in the exercise of judicial duties.

The implicit message of the remarks echoes recent debates about the social role of public officials, the consistency between the role they claim and the role they actually perform, and transparency toward the citizens who fund, through taxes, both the operation of the court and the public universities that host a significant share of the country’s law programs.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did the justice decide not to teach regular classes?

According to his explanation in the plenary, he believes the demanding schedule of a seat on the Supreme Court would make it difficult to guarantee constant presence in a teaching routine. To avoid the possibility of being listed as an absentee professor, he chose to give up fixed classes, keeping only occasional one-off appearances in academic settings when he can truly attend.

Can judges hold a judicial office and teach in Brazil?

The Constitution expressly allows members of the judiciary to teach, as long as their schedules are compatible. It is one of the few exceptions to the full-time exclusive dedication required of the judicial career. The rule is meant to allow academic contributions without compromising the judge’s main judicial duties or the integrity of the administration of justice.

Why does it matter publicly when justices make remarks in the plenary?

Supreme Court sessions are public and broadcast, so anything a justice says, even in an informal tone, gets immediate attention. Spontaneous comments during trials are often picked up by the specialized press and serve as a gauge of the court’s internal climate and of the justices’ personal views on a wide range of issues that touch everyday life in the country.

As informações deste artigo são de caráter informativo e não substituem consulta jurídica individualizada. Cada caso possui particularidades que exigem análise específica.