The paper claims that, despite the rhetoric of its justices, the social permeability of the Brazilian Supreme Court is selective: access to the court is provided to certain social groups, but not to others. The social selectivity of the court operates through formal and informal mechanisms based on procedural rules that are seemingly neutral. The article analyzes two of such mechanisms that are barely (or not at all) addressed by existing scholarship: the restrictive case law on standing to bring abstract constitutional review challenges, and the practice of informal private hearings between attorneys, parties, and justices, known as  despachos . The paper argues that the unequal distribution of access to the court goes against the ideas of access to justice, equality, democracy and the rule of law itself.