De Moraes, a key figure in Brazil’s judiciary, previously placed Bolsonaro under house arrest in August 2025 for violating a court order banning him from using social media during his trial over an alleged coup attempt. At the time, the US justified its sanctions by accusing the judge of orchestrating “oppressive censorship, arbitrary detentions violating human rights, and politically motivated prosecutions,” including actions against Bolsonaro.

The decision to lift sanctions comes amid ongoing tensions between the US and Brazil over the independence of the country’s judicial system. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva had criticised the original sanctions as an “interference” in Brazil’s justice system, while Bolsonaro’s son, Congressman Eduardo Bolsonaro, praised the US for its support, describing the move as a defence of strategic American interests.

Meanwhile, Bolsonaro is now required to begin serving his 27-year prison sentence at the Federal Police headquarters in Brasília, following his conviction for an attempted coup in September 2025. The removal of sanctions on De Moraes underscores the complex international and political pressures surrounding Brazil’s high-profile judicial cases and their broader diplomatic implications.

Judges Alexandre de Moraes and Flávio Dino have already signalled support for the charges, citing evidence that Eduardo Bolsonaro pressured Supreme Court justices from abroad. According to prosecutors, he even boasted about the sanctions that could be applied against them.

The case is closely connected to Bolsonaro’s own legal troubles. Jair Bolsonaro was recently convicted by the same court for plotting a coup after his 2022 electoral defeat and received a 27-year prison sentence. The potential prosecution of his son adds a new dimension to the ongoing political-judicial drama in Brazil.

From a global perspective, the proceedings highlight the fragility of democratic institutions in the face of populist political networks. The international community is closely watching if Brazil’s judiciary can maintain its independence under pressure from powerful political figures and their allies abroad.

If Eduardo Bolsonaro is formally charged, it may deepen political polarisation in Brazil and raise significant questions about accountability, rule of law and the separation of powers in one of Latin America ’s most influential democracies.

In the majority decision, Justice Alexandre de Moraes said the evidence showed Bolsonaro presided over a “criminal organisation” throughout his presidency. “What was seen during the four years of the mandate was the implementation of a criminal organisation, led by the defendant Jair Messias Bolsonaro, to put into practice the plan of institutional rupture through a coup d’état and the end of the Democratic State of Law,” Moraes declared.

The final sentence, which combines multiple convictions, was set at 27 years and three months in prison under Article 69 of Brazil’s Penal Code. “Considering all the sentences established above and the existence, as recognised by the majority of the panel, of the material concurrence of crimes … the final sentence for the defendant Jair Messias Bolsonaro was set at 27 years and three months,” Moraes confirmed.

"It really does feel as though the state wants to kill us," said Helen Belcher, a prominent trans rights campaigner and chair of the advocacy group TransActual.

Speaking to the AFP following the court’s decision, Belcher said the ruling represents a fundamental denial of trans people's identities and lived realities.

Belcher, 61, who is also a Liberal Democrat politician, said the implications of the ruling are already being felt within the trans community.

"I fear for people's mental health. I fear for people's physical health. I fear for people's ability to earn money. They've issued a ruling that sex is biological, but they haven't defined what biological means,” said Belcher

Belcher warned and reasoned that the judgment leans on a rigid and outdated framework, dismissing scientific literature that recognises sex and gender as complex spectrums.

“They're relying very much on a Trumpian, evangelical Christian simplistic world model,” Belcher said, “ignoring all huge amounts of scientific literature, which says that sex is not binary, it's not simple, it's really complex. In their judgment, they have decided basically that intersex people and non-binary people don't exist. And it's awful."

Belcher, who transitioned more than 20 years ago, described the ruling as a deeply personal blow.

“To go through that process - sometimes painful process - of getting to understand myself, having invasive medical questioning, some painful surgeries, to then be told, ‘Yeah, but you're still a man,’ is deliberately and intentionally cruel.”

The ruling has brought back the already polarised national debate over trans rights. However, the Supreme Court justices emphasised that trans people remain protected under the Equality Act against discrimination and harassment.

The court’s decision was based on the definition of biological sex in the Equality Act 2010.

The decision ends a six-year-long legal battle between the Scottish government and campaign group For Women Scotland.

It also settles questions about who can be counted as a woman in laws that are meant to protect women’s rights.

Lord Hodge, one of the top judges, delivered the ruling in a detailed judgment that took almost 17 minutes to explain in court. The full ruling is 88 pages long.

Why the court made this decision

According to the judges, the Equality Act clearly defines the conditions under which various groups should be protected. In their view, changing the definition of sex to include those with gender recognition certificates would make the law confusing and hard to apply.

“The definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary. A person is either a woman or a man,” part of the ruling said.

The judges also said using different meanings for words like “woman” would create unfairness, especially if some transgender people had legal recognition while others did not.

That would lead to groups with mixed rights, which, according to the judges, was not practical.

In simple terms, they found that the law protects people based on whether they are biologically male or female, not what is written on a certificate.

What the judges based their ruling on

The UK Supreme Court gave nine main reasons for saying that the Equality Act 2010 uses the word “woman” to mean someone born female.

The judges said the law protects people from discrimination based on sex and gender reassignment, but the meaning of sex must stay clear and consistent.

The first reason was that the Equality Act is built around group protections. It protects people as part of a group, like all women or all men, and not just individuals. This means sex needs a clear, shared meaning.

Secondly, they said the law must be applied in a way that is “clear and consistent”. Changing what the word “woman” means in some parts of the law would create confusion.

Third, using “certified sex” (the sex on a Gender Recognition Certificate) instead of biological sex would mix people into groups that were never meant to be mixed under the law. This would make it hard to apply the rules.

Fourth, they said that the ordinary meaning of “sex discrimination” in the law is about biological sex, not legal documents or identity.

Fifth, if “woman” could mean different things in different parts of the law, the whole Act would stop making sense. For example, rules about pregnancy clearly apply only to biological women.

Sixth, if the Scottish government’s view were used, it would create two groups of trans people — those with legal certificates and those without. The judges said this would be unfair and confusing, especially since who has a certificate is private information.

Seventh, using gender certificates to define “woman” would mean some people have more rights than others, which was not the aim of the law.

Eighth, they said the Scottish government’s rules went against the purpose of the Equality Act and could not legally change what the law means.

The ninth reason was that letting ministers change the meaning of a word in a UK-wide law like the Equality Act was not allowed. Only the UK Parliament can do that.

What this means for transgender people

While many supporters of For Women Scotland were seen crying, hugging, and celebrating outside the court, the judges made it clear this was not a victory over transgender people.

“This should not be seen as a triumph for one group over another,” said Lord Hodge, who read the ruling .

The court also stressed that transgender people still have legal protection under the Equality Act. Being transgender, also called gender reassignment in the law, remains a protected characteristic.

A person can still face discrimination for being trans, and the law says they must not be treated unfairly. Even without a Gender Recognition Certificate, transgender people are still protected.

How the dispute started

The case began in 2018 after the Scottish government passed a law to increase the number of women on public boards. The law included some transgender women in the count.

For Women Scotland challenged that decision. They said only people born female should be included in targets set for women, such as filling 50% of non-executive roles on public boards.

The court agreed, indicating that including trans women in the count of women for these targets is not supported by the legal meaning of the word “woman” in the Equality Act.

Reactions from both sides

Supporters of For Women Scotland were emotional and joyful after the ruling. Some called the women who brought the case “she-roes” and celebrated outside the court by singing, “women’s rights are human rights.”

Baroness Kishwer Falkner, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), said the decision answered difficult questions about protecting single-sex spaces and same-sex rights.

Former MP Harriet Harman, who helped write the Equality Act, said the court made the right call. “Single-sex spaces for women are important and can exclude trans women, but only where necessary,” she told the BBC .

Trans rights groups, however, urged calm. Scottish Trans, a charity in Edinburgh, told people not to panic.

“There will be a lot of talk that overstates how this will affect trans people,” the group said in a message online. “Please look after yourselves and each other today.”

What happens next?

This ruling is a major moment in the UK’s gender rights debate. The case was adjourned in court after Lord Hodge concluded the judgment by saying that the court had allowed the appeal by For Women Scotland, having outlined a number of reasons why.

Although the case is concluded, it is likely to return to the political arena as campaigners on both sides push for change.