Senate Confirmation Hearing Weighs Nominee for Open Seat on Brazil’s Supreme Court

This page is a translation of the original Portuguese text, provided for convenience. It deals with Brazilian law. If there is any discrepancy, the Portuguese version prevails. Read the original in Portuguese

On Wednesday, the Senate’s Constitution and Justice Committee held the confirmation hearing for the nominee to the open seat on Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court, with debate on judicial activism, the separation of powers, and institutional conduct.

Confirmation hearing marks a decisive stage in the Supreme Court nomination

On the morning of Wednesday, April 29, 2026, the Constitution and Justice Committee of the Federal Senate received Attorney General of the Union Jorge Messias, the President’s nominee for a seat on Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court. The public hearing is part of the procedure the Constitution sets for confirming justices of the court. It comes before the vote on the Senate floor, where the nomination needs the favorable vote of at least forty-one of the eighty-one senators to become an appointment.

The session began at about 9:49 a.m. with a speech of nearly forty minutes by the nominee, who reviewed his professional background and his institutional convictions. Twenty-two lawmakers signed up to question him, each with up to ten minutes to speak. The rapporteur’s report had already come out in favor of the nomination, and at the end of the meeting the committee’s voting members were to decide whether to approve or reject the name sent by the Executive Branch.

The nominee presented himself as a career member of the federal public legal service, trained at the Federal University of Pernambuco, with a master’s degree and a doctorate in law from the University of Brasília. He mentioned stints at the Central Bank, the National Treasury Attorney’s Office, the Chief of Staff’s Office (Casa Civil), and the Ministry of Education, as well as the Union’s General Counsel’s Office. In 2023, he was appointed Attorney General of the Union, a post in which he worked to defend public policies and to support the office’s institutional rebuilding agenda.

Main points of the opening statement

In his opening remarks, the nominee built his speech around three pillars of his tenure in the public legal service: legal certainty, fiscal responsibility, and dialogue among institutions. He argued for continuous improvement of the country’s highest court through greater transparency, openness to public scrutiny, and respect for collegiality. He also came out in favor of fewer single-justice decisions on major issues and of preserving the institutional legitimacy of the full court.

The nominee took a cautious stance in describing the judicial role, advocating a balance between intervention and restraint, which he described as the simultaneous absence of both activism and passivity. He maintained that constitutional interpretation should be built collectively, through institutional dialogue among the branches of government and with participation from society. On his personal religious beliefs, he stated that he is evangelical and, at the same time, affirmed his commitment to the secular nature of the State, stressing that individual beliefs cannot prevail over the constitutional text.

In closing his opening speech, he pledged to serve in a manner he described as serious, discreet, and results-oriented, with democracy, freedom, and justice as the pillars of the judicial role, if the Senate floor approves him. Those present in the committee room received the speech with prolonged applause.

Constitutional interpretation should be built collectively, with dialogue among the branches of government and participation from society.

This institutional tone set the stage for his answers to questions on sensitive topics of great public interest. On those topics, the nominee took extra care not to signal a position in specific cases still awaiting judgment.

Sensitive topics in the senators’ questions

The first question concerned abortion, a matter the Supreme Court is still working to resolve. The nominee said he is personally opposed to the practice but separated personal conviction from institutional conduct, recalling that, as head of the public legal service, he defended Congress’s authority to legislate on criminal matters. He reaffirmed his commitment to strict legality, to the separation of powers, and to the criminal offense as defined in the legal system, noting the exceptions already allowed by current law: risk to the pregnant woman’s life, pregnancy resulting from rape, and anencephaly.

On the acts of January 8, 2023, the nominee called the episode one of the saddest of his personal career and described his immediate work to protect the public property of the headquarters of the three branches of government. He maintained that his involvement was limited to defending the public treasury, with no role in criminal prosecution, and stressed that any accountability must respect due process of law, with each person’s conduct assessed individually. On a possible amnesty for those involved, he left the issue to the legislative sphere, acknowledging Congress’s authority to decide it and noting the constitutional right to public criticism.

The nominee also took questions on judicial activism, weighing the need to keep the court from acting as a third legislative chamber against its duty to protect fundamental rights, minorities, and vulnerable groups. On labor issues under review at the court, he argued for strengthening the specialized judiciary and considered it technically better suited to decide disputes over labor relations. To better understand how the court’s decisions affect day-to-day administration, it is worth following periodically published content on constitutional law.

Responding to questions about fraud against retirees and pensioners of the General Social Security Regime, the nominee said the public legal service took immediate technical measures. These included filing lawsuits against the entities and officials involved, freezing more than two billion three hundred million reais in assets and funds, and returning money to approximately four million five hundred thousand beneficiaries. He highlighted the coordination with the court, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Public Defender’s Office, and the lawyers’ professional association to reconcile restitution to the victims with accountability for those responsible for the fraud.

Frequently Asked Questions

How does the nomination procedure for Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court work?

The Constitution provides that the court’s justices are chosen by the President from among citizens over thirty-five years of age with notable legal knowledge and an unblemished reputation. The nominee’s name goes to the Senate’s Constitution and Justice Committee, which holds a public hearing and prepares a report. The full Senate then decides by secret ballot, and an absolute majority of the senators is required. Once the nomination is approved, the President makes the appointment and the nominee is sworn in before the court.

Why did the seat under discussion open up on the court?

The seat opened because a justice who recently left the court retired. A justice may leave through mandatory retirement at age 75, through voluntary retirement after meeting the legal requirements, or through resignation under the terms of the Constitution. Whenever a seat becomes vacant, the nomination and confirmation hearing procedure begins. The periodic renewal of the court’s membership is built into its constitutional design.

How much does the confirmation hearing actually matter for the nominee’s confirmation?

The hearing is public and political in nature. Although senators are not bound by any specific answers, the nominee’s appearance serves as a forum for assessing his institutional profile, the consistency of his arguments, and his ability to engage in dialogue. The committee’s report and the subsequent vote on the Senate floor decide the outcome. Nominations that face strong political resistance tend to draw intense debate, even though the Senate’s approval rate has historically been high.

As informações deste artigo são de caráter informativo e não substituem consulta jurídica individualizada. Cada caso possui particularidades que exigem análise específica.