Legal scholars split over legality of pro-Bolsonaro lawmaker arrest

Brazilian law enforcement arrested pro-Bolsonaro lawmaker Daniel Silveira late on Tuesday night after he published a video online verbally threatening members of the Supreme Court and advocating anti-democratic measures. The case sparked an institutional crisis in Brazil, pitting the Legislative branch against the Judiciary in a conflict over free speech, parliamentary immunity, and the protection of democracy.

In the video, Mr. Silveira called for the return of Institutional Act Number 5 (AI-5), a decree issued by the military dictatorship in 1968 which allowed the government to dissolve Congress and suspend a series of constitutional guarantees, eventually leading to the institutionalization of state-sponsored torture against the regime’s opponents.

The former military police officer and first-term member of Congress also launched a series of verbal insults at members of the Supreme Court. Mr. Silveira called Justice Edson Fachin a “bum, cretin, and bastard,” and said he was the “cream of the crap” of the country’s highest court.

Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes was notified of the video on Tuesday and ordered the warrantless arrest of Mr. Silveira for threatening the safety of members of the Supreme Court and violating the democratic rule of law. However, legal scholars and criminalists are split over the validity of the decision.

Among the leading members of the legal...