Guardian in a State of Exception: the Brazilian Judiciary between Beliefs, Post-Truths, and Epistemic Crisis

This article investigates the paradoxical role of the Judiciary as guardian of the Constitution in a post-truth context. The study focuses on Constitutional Law, with emphasis on judicial action during institutional crises. The research question is: to what extent does the Judiciary, acting in a state of exception to protect constitutional order, rely on ideological beliefs and non-local evidence? The objectives include analysing the central arguments of “Essay on Legal Blindness”, “In the Mind or in the World?”, and “Post-Truth and the Epistemological Crisis”, integrating them into a critical reading of judicial activism and epistemic crisis. The methodology is inductive, based on bibliographical research of the three texts, situating them within the debate between law, society, and economy. The results indicate that the Brazilian Judiciary has operated in a “state of unconstitutional affairs”, exceeding formal limits under the justification of protecting democracy. This conduct is influenced by progressive beliefs validated by technical-scientific consensus, which hinders public contestation. It is concluded that this conjunction of factors constitutes an epistemological crisis in law, demanding a review of institutional boundaries and greater epistemic self-criticism to preserve the rule of law.