-Analysis-
SÃO PAULO — In the early 1970s, a young lawyer left Rio de Janeiro for Brasilia to take part in a trial at Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court (STF). Dressed in a blazer and long pants, the woman had come make an oral argument before the justices. But the trial would start without her: security guards stopped the lawyer from entering because she was not wearing a dress or skirt, which were considered appropriate attire for women attending the STF at the time.
[shortcode-Women-worldwide–Sign-up-box]
Some senior staff say that the woman even took off her pants and tried to enter wearing only a blazer and underwear. Others say that the outrage did not reach such proportions. Nevertheless, the story became a legend that — even without official proof — can be heard in the corridors and offices of the Supreme Court.
In the years that followed, up to the present day, there have been other incidents of women being prevented from entering the high court because they were not dressed “appropriately.” And the STF is not the institution, nor is the judiciary the only branch of power, in Brazil that requires women to wear dresses and skirts on its premises — even after decades of Brazilian society accepting women wearing long pants.
How change begins
The scenario only began to change — at least on paper — in 1997, when then president of the Senate, Antônio Carlos Magalhães, authorized women to wear long pants in the plenary, committee rooms and other places where members of the legislature circulate.
Elected in 1998, Senator Heloísa Helena was one of the first legislators to put the measure into practice and make it customary for women to wear pants: “Better late than never,” she said when asked by Agência Pública about the issue.
And she notes that when the first woman was elected to the Senate, in 1978, there wasn’t even a women’s restroom in the plenary — and one was only installed in 2016.
Discriminatory attitude
In this context, in 2000, 63 female civil servants signed a letter to then president of the court, Justice Carlos Velloso, asking to be allowed to wear pants. Their mobilization gained strength and was endorsed by the Federal Council of the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB). In the lawsuit, the court workers claimed that the limitation on clothing represented a “curtailment of women’s right to freedom”, guaranteed by the legal system and the Federal Constitution. The OAB spoke of a “discriminatory attitude.”
The request of the female civil servants was accepted by a majority vote. Thus, three years after the Senate, in 2000, the STF authorized women to wear long pants, as well as dresses or skirts, but not without the mandatory use of a blazer as part of the dress code.
The decision was taken in an administrative session on May 3, 2000, in which only men voted; at that point, in more than a century of existence, no woman had occupied a seat as a Supreme Court justice.
Among the items banned were tight leggings, sleeveless blouses and crop tops.
Such a decision by the Supreme Court usually sets a precedent for other courts in the country to follow; however, that did not happen in this case. The Superior Electoral Court (TSE), a pioneer on the subject, no longer required women to wear only dresses and skirts. In the Superior Labor Court (TST) and the Supreme Court of the Judiciary (STJ), authorization came later, but the issue is still the subject of discussion and, from time to time, changes in dress code.
At the STJ, the most recent change to the dress code was approved in February 2023, and sparked controversy. Among the items banned were tight leggings, sleeveless blouses and crop tops. The new rule didn’t last long. Two months later, in April, it was suspended by national ombudsman Luís Felipe Salomão, also a minister at the STJ, who claimed that the requirements could embarrass the female public.
An important gesture
Six years after the STF allowed women to wear long pants, as well as dresses and skirts, workers, journalists and even visitors arriving at the court were not allowed to do so. Former assistants and journalists who were often at the court said that the rules were sometimes subjective and determined by security or ceremony.
In 2006, Helena caused discomfort at the Supreme Court, when she tried to attend wearing her usual jeans and a T-shirt, but was barred on the recommendation of Justice Ellen Gracie. When questioned by journalists, the Helena said she was unaware of the clothing rule. The episode made headlines and revived he discussion about the policing of women’s clothing, as women began to complain to ministers in informal conversations.
After being sworn in to the STF, Cármen Lúcia, the second woman to occupy a seat on the court told Pública that she was “determined to break with this archaic and obsolete protocol.” Lúcia warned her peers that the next day she would wear pants to work, and so she did, arriving in a black suit and marking a first for the STF.
A lawyer in her early thirties who attended the session remembered the day as one of “great emotion”: “I was there with great joy when the first woman entered wearing pants. She wasn’t the first woman Supreme Court justice, but she made a difference. It’s always important that we try to make a difference in the spaces we work in. On that day, Justice Cármen Lúcia freed women all over Brazil to dress in a dignified way, but in pants. Something that came a hundred years too late”.
Measuring centimeters
Lúcia’s gesture went down in history and illustrated the front pages of newspapers. But in practice, the break with the old dress code was achieved little by little over the years.
I had to exchange clothes with my intern
One lawyer who was present for Lúcia’s gesture was later barred from entering the plenary session because her blazer sleeves showed 4 centimeters of her wrist: “I was barred once from the Supreme Court plenary session because my pants were a bit short and my heel showed, and my blazer was short and my wrist showed. The security guard measured me and said that my wrist showed more than 4 centimeters and I couldn’t enter the court. I tried to claim that it was fashionable, that then-president Dilma Rousseff wore a similar model, but it was no use. I had to exchange clothes with my intern because I was going to give an oral argument and I couldn’t miss it.”
Trying to make a difference, in the smallest space, was the motto that led Daniela Teixeira through her professional career until 2023, when it was her turn to be the protagonist of the story. After 16 years of having her blazer and pants measured to the millimeter, Daniela Teixeira replaced them with a judge’s robe.
Stricter toward Black women
Edilene Lôbo and Vera Lúcia, the first Black women on the TSE, warn that the “fashion police” are even more strict toward Black women. Vera Lúcia told Pública: “I’ve been stopped at the entrance to the TJDFT [Court of Justice of the Federal District and Territories], where I always went, either to check my clothes or the way my hair was. The security guards knew me, but they didn’t see me as a lawyer.”
Lôbo noted that strict rules on clothing make it difficult for not only women, but also the poorest population to gain access to spaces of power. That is confirmed by data recorded by official bodies, which show inequality and under-representation. In elected positions, no branch of government has achieved gender balance; the most balanced role in government is that of second deputy senator, 44% are women.
On March 8, International Women’s Day, Cármen Lúcia was categorical when she stated in the Supreme Court’s plenary session that the possibility of building together has often been denied to women.
“They say we have been silent historically. That’s a lie!,” Lúcia exclaims. “We have been silenced, but we always continue to speak out, even though we are often not heard.”
