Fachin returns INSS case to Mendonça's docket and keeps Master investigation under the presidency for 90 days

Edson Fachin made two different procedural decisions. He returned the INSS investigation to André Mendonça’s docket, while keeping the Banco Master investigation under his own responsibility for 90 days. The distinction matters because the justice responsible for a case usually organizes its progress at the Supreme Court.

The concrete change is the division of responsibility. Mendonça again handles the INSS matter. The headlines also say Fachin returned investigations involving “Lulinha” to Mendonça. Fachin, meanwhile, retains control of the Master investigation during the stated 90-day period.

The source does not explain why Fachin chose the temporary arrangement. It does establish that the INSS case returns to Mendonça, while Master remains with Fachin for a limited time. After 90 days, responsibility could be reassessed, but the source does not state what decision will follow or whether the investigation will change direction.

In Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court, the relator is the justice assigned to guide a case inside the Court. This generally includes receiving filings, supervising investigative steps allowed by the Court, examining requests, and preparing decisions or reports for later consideration. The role gives procedural control, not unlimited personal authority.

For example, when Mendonça is relator of the INSS investigation, requests and developments normally reach him first. He may decide certain procedural questions within his legal powers and bring major issues to the Court’s appropriate panel or full bench. Other justices can still participate when the rules require a collective decision.

The supplied headlines do not define the relator’s powers or list every step Mendonça may take. They establish that the INSS case was returned to his relatoria. In practice, that changes who coordinates the case at the Court, while the Court’s legal limits and collective decision-making remain important.

The source names the INSS investigation, investigations involving “Lulinha,” and the investigation involving Banco Master. Read together, the headlines describe two matters returning to André Mendonça and one remaining temporarily with Edson Fachin. That produces a practical count of two with Mendonça and one with Fachin.

The clearest example is the repeated contrast in the headlines. Folha, CNN Brasil, and Estadão say Fachin returned the INSS case to Mendonça but retained Master. O GLOBO adds that investigations involving the INSS and “Lulinha” returned to Mendonça. Master therefore remains the exception in the reported allocation.

This count reflects the matters named in the supplied text, not a complete inventory of every investigation at the Supreme Court. The source does not provide case numbers, procedural details, or explain whether “INSS” and “Lulinha” are formally separate proceedings. It does clearly state the reported division of responsibility.

Fachin’s decision leaves the Master investigation under his responsibility for 90 days. The time limit matters because it is not presented as a permanent transfer or permanent retention. It sets an endpoint for the arrangement and signals that responsibility may need a new decision afterward.

The concrete mechanism is administrative and procedural. During those 90 days, Fachin remains the justice associated with the investigation’s handling at the Supreme Court. Mendonça, by contrast, resumes responsibility for the INSS case. The supplied headlines do not identify a specific action that Fachin must complete during the period.

The source does not explain why Fachin selected 90 days. It also does not say what happens on day 91. The practical implication is limited but clear: Master stays with Fachin for a defined period, after which the Court may reassess the arrangement or issue another assignment, depending on a decision not reported here.

The source provides names, not investigative substance. It refers to an INSS investigation and an investigation involving Banco Master, but it does not identify the alleged conduct, people investigated, evidence, or legal questions. Any more specific description would go beyond the supplied article text.

The same limit applies to the cases’ arrival at the Supreme Federal Court. The headlines show that Fachin and Mendonça are handling them there, but they give no explanation about jurisdiction, constitutional issues, political office, or a request from another authority. Those possible pathways cannot be assigned to these cases from the source.

What can be stated safely is that both matters are being treated as investigations within the Supreme Court’s orbit. The reported decision changes their relatoria, not their underlying subject. To explain what each investigates or why it reached the Court, additional reporting or official case documents would be necessary.

Changing the relator can affect the investigation’s day-to-day path inside the Supreme Federal Court. The assigned justice generally receives requests, reviews developments, and decides which procedural matters require action or collective consideration. It does not automatically change the facts under investigation or determine the final legal outcome.

Here, Mendonça again becomes the justice handling the INSS case. Fachin remains responsible for Master for 90 days. That means requests and procedural developments in those matters may be directed through different justices during this period. The source does not identify any specific order, evidence decision, deadline, or investigative step caused by the change.

The forward consequence is mainly institutional. The cases now have a reported division of responsibility, with a temporary exception for Master. After 90 days, the allocation may be reviewed. The source does not say whether responsibility will return to Mendonça, stay with Fachin, or move again.

Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court is made up of justices who decide cases collectively when the Court’s rules require it. It also has a president, who performs institutional and administrative duties and can exercise procedural authority within the Court. A relator handles a case’s assigned course, but the Court remains governed by legal rules and collegial decisions.

That structure explains how Fachin can return the INSS case to Mendonça and retain Master temporarily without personally deciding the underlying investigations. The president can manage or confirm responsibility for cases, while the relator examines procedural matters and presents issues for collective judgment when necessary.

The supplied headlines do not explain the formal legal basis for Fachin’s assignment decision or describe the Court’s panels. Those details require additional sources. The reported arrangement should therefore be understood as a change in case responsibility, not as a final ruling on the INSS or Master investigations.