The purpose of this study is to analyze how the National Council of Justice (CNJ), the body responsible for the administrative oversight of judicial activity at the national level, adjudicates cases in which judges allegedly make discriminatory statements in their rulings. A qualitative examination of a sample of cases was conducted to identify recurring argumentative patterns, whether to dismiss the administrative proceeding or to acknowledge professional misconduct. Finally, these argumentative recurrences were critically analyzed through epistemological lenses provided by the theoretical framework of decoloniality, such as Lélia Gonzalez s concept of Brazilian cultural neurosis and the notion of epistemic privilege, as used by Djamila Ribeiro.