Lula’s Court Pick Rejected, First in 132 Years
A New Fault Line in Brazil

← Back to Latin America News

A nomination meant to fill a vacancy on Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court (STF) was rejected by the full Senate on April 29. The secret-ballot result — 34 in favor, 42 against — was recorded as a historic rejection, the first in 132 years.

Who Was Named, and Why He Was Blocked

The man Lula sought to send was the sitting prosecutor-general, Jorge Messias. As a legal pillar of the government, he had pushed tighter social-media regulation and legal readings favorable to the administration, and his closeness to the president was an open fact. In seeking the seat, Messias pitched himself as a “moderate evangelical Christian,” courting the conservative and religious votes that hold great sway in Congress. But it backfired. In the Senate, the right and center-right have gained ground since last year’s election, and the Lula camp’s legislative maneuvering could not move the numbers. Reports say much of the opposition came from groups in the Bolsonaro current.

What the Broken Custom Shows

Since 1894, no justice nominated by a president had been blocked by Congress. While Senate approval was formally required, in practice it had passed as a “ceremonial review.” That custom broke for the first time in 132 years. The Supreme Court is supposed, in principle, to be an institution set apart from politics. Yet this rejection laid bare that the executive-legislative conflict now reaches even judicial appointments.

Cohesion in Question Before October

Brazil faces presidential and congressional elections this October. Lula is set to seek a fourth term with Vice President Alckmin, but this rejection sent a signal, at home and abroad, that the sitting president lacks the backing of key legislators. The next day, the government said it would make its next nominee a woman — a choice harder for conservative votes to chip away at, aimed at easing Senate resistance.

Yet the underlying problems — a cabinet reshuffle, rebuilding trust with Congress — remain deferred. Court appointments also bear on the future of economic policy and tax reform. The cases before a justice serving a seven-year term are piled high, and who is appointed shapes how the government governs. The rejection may prove more than a passing political defeat, trailing into the campaign as an “impression of weakness.” This article supports no particular side; it follows the facts.

What a rejection unseen in 132 years asks is not one president’s power to nominate, but the depth of a new tug-of-war the executive and legislature wage across the three branches.

※ This article is the author’s commentary based on public information. Please confirm the latest figures, dates and procedures with governments and primary sources. Quotations are kept minimal and sources are cited.