The first rejection in 132 years that a sitting president's choice for Brazil's highest court had been rejected
Na noite de quarta-feira, o Senado brasileiro escreveu um capítulo inédito em 132 anos ao rejeitar Jorge Messias, o indicado do presidente Lula para o Supremo Tribunal Federal, por 42 votos a 34. A derrota não é apenas a perda de uma cadeira na mais alta corte do país — é a exposição de fraturas profundas entre o Palácio do Planalto e o Congresso, num momento em que eleições se aproximam e a coesão política vale mais do que nunca. Como tantas vezes na história, o que parece uma disputa institucional revela, por baixo, a geometria frágil das alianças humanas.
- A rejeição de Messias foi a primeira em 132 anos, desde o governo Floriano Peixoto em 1894, e pegou o governo Lula de surpresa em sua magnitude.
- O Planalto aponta o dedo para Davi Alcolumbre, presidente do Senado, acusado por aliados de ter articulado ativamente votos contrários ao indicado — acusação que seu gabinete nega.
- Dentro do governo, a divisão é real: uma ala quer retaliação imediata contra Alcolumbre, enquanto outra pede cautela para não comprometer pautas legislativas essenciais à campanha eleitoral.
- Lula sinalizou a aliados que não fará nova indicação ao STF antes das eleições de outubro, transformando a derrota em impasse congelado até o resultado das urnas.
- A oposição de Bolsonaro sai fortalecida politicamente, e aliados do PT reconhecem que o episódio alimenta a polarização a seis meses do pleito.
- A ferida aberta lembra, para alguns dentro do governo, o trauma do impeachment de Dilma Rousseff — e a pergunta que paira é se o Planalto responderá com confronto ou com contenção.
O Senado derrubou a indicação de Jorge Messias ao Supremo Tribunal Federal na noite de quarta-feira, por 42 votos a 34, numa votação que não tinha precedente desde 1894. Para o governo Lula, a derrota vai além de uma vaga perdida: ela expõe a fragilidade de suas relações com o Congresso a seis meses das eleições, com pautas cruciais ainda pendentes de aprovação.
No centro da crise está Davi Alcolumbre, presidente do Senado. Aliados de Lula e membros do Planalto o responsabilizam pela articulação da derrota — afirmando que ele telefonou a colegas pedindo votos contrários a Messias, a quem sempre preferiu o nome de Rodrigo Pacheco. O gabinete de Alcolumbre nega qualquer interferência, mas a percepção dentro do governo já está moldando os próximos passos.
Lula teria dito a pessoas próximas que, caso Messias fosse rejeitado, não faria nova indicação antes de outubro. O senador Weverton Rocha confirmou publicamente essa posição. A questão que permanece sem resposta é o que fazer com Alcolumbre: puni-lo e arriscar perder apoio legislativo, ou engolir o orgulho e seguir negociando com quem agora é visto como adversário.
O governo está dividido. Uma ala quer retaliação — cortar emendas, bloquear cargos, enfraquecer Alcolumbre no Amapá. Outra pede paciência, lembrando que projetos como o fim da escala 6x1 dependem de uma relação funcional com o Congresso. Gleisi Hoffmann atribuiu a derrota a um acordo entre a oposição bolsonarista e senadores movidos por interesses pessoais; o ministro José Guimarães adotou tom mais contido, respeitando a decisão soberana do Senado.
Alguns aliados comparam o momento ao impeachment de Dilma Rousseff. Outros insistem que a derrota não mudará o resultado de outubro. O que está claro é que o Planalto enfrenta uma escolha que definirá não apenas o fim do mandato de Lula, mas o tom da política brasileira nos meses que antecedem as urnas.
The Senate voted down Jorge Messias on Wednesday evening, 42 to 34, rejecting the Supreme Court nominee that President Lula had personally selected. It was a stunning defeat—the first time in 132 years that a sitting president's choice for Brazil's highest court had been rejected by the chamber. The last such rejection occurred in 1894, during the government of Floriano Peixoto. For Lula's administration, the loss opened a wound that cuts deeper than a single failed appointment. It exposed fractures in his relationship with Congress at a moment when he can least afford them, with elections six months away and crucial legislation still pending.
The blame, according to government allies and Lula's inner circle, falls squarely on Davi Alcolumbre, the Senate president. Alcolumbre had opposed Messias from the start, preferring instead the name of Rodrigo Pacheco. According to senators who spoke to reporters, Alcolumbre made phone calls to colleagues urging them to vote against the nominee. His office has denied any such effort. But the perception within the Planalto—Lula's presidential palace—is that Alcolumbre orchestrated the defeat, and that perception is now shaping how the government calculates its next move.
Lula had told people close to him before the vote that if Messias fell short, he would not nominate another candidate before October's election. Senator Weverton Rocha, who managed the nomination through the constitutional committee and counts himself among Lula's allies, confirmed this stance publicly. The president has made his choice, Rocha said, and barring unforeseen circumstances, the matter will rest until after voters go to the polls. This restraint, however, masks a deeper question: what does Lula do about Alcolumbre?
The government is divided on the answer. One faction, led by allies who see the rejection as a calculated betrayal, wants retaliation. They propose weakening Alcolumbre in his home state of Amapá and severing ties with him entirely, arguing that trust between the two men is now impossible. Others counsel patience. They point out that Lula still needs Congress to pass legislation he considers essential to his reelection campaign—most notably, a bill to end the 6-to-1 work schedule that has become a popular rallying cry. These voices argue for letting tempers cool before making any irreversible decisions.
Deputy Gleisi Hoffmann, a former minister of institutional relations, took to social media to describe the vote as the result of a "grand bargain" between Bolsonaro's opposition and senators motivated by personal grievance and fear of investigations into financial scandals and organized crime. José Guimarães, the minister responsible for congressional relations, struck a more measured tone, saying the government respects the Senate's sovereign decision while calling on the chamber to explain itself. Randolfo Rodrigues, the government's leader in Congress, suggested that this setback, while painful, would not fundamentally alter Lula's institutional relationships with the heads of either chamber.
But the wound runs deep. One Lula ally with access to the palace compared this moment to the 2016 impeachment of former president Dilma Rousseff—the most serious crisis the PT has faced in a decade. Some within the government are now proposing a broader offensive against Congress, suggesting that federal amendments and job appointments be reconsidered as leverage. Others want the Planalto to resurrect the rhetoric of "Congress as enemy of the people," a frame that gained traction last year during debates over financial transaction taxes.
Lula's allies also recognize that the defeat strengthens Flávio Bolsonaro, Lula's rival in the coming election. They acknowledge that the vote was colored by political polarization as the campaign season approaches. Yet they insist the loss will not materially affect the outcome in October. PT president Edinho Silva issued a statement calling the Senate's action a grave error that destabilizes democratic institutions, and defending Messias as a serious jurist whose rejection reveals the willingness of certain congressional sectors to weaken the judiciary for political gain.
What happens next depends on choices not yet made. The government must decide whether to punish Alcolumbre and risk losing legislative support it desperately needs, or to swallow its pride and continue negotiating with a man it now views as an adversary. That calculation will define not just the remainder of Lula's term, but the shape of Brazilian politics in the months ahead.
Citações Notáveis
He has an appointee, Minister Messias, and he already said there won't be another name. Until the election, I believe he should not speak about this anymore.— Senator Weverton Rocha, who managed the nomination
The Senate committed a grave error, and this posture generates important institutional instability.— PT president Edinho Silva
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does it matter that this is the first rejection since 1894? What changes because of that historical marker?
It signals that something fundamental has broken. For 132 years, even when presidents disagreed with Congress, there was a floor—a basic institutional respect that kept certain decisions off the table. This rejection says that floor no longer exists, or at least that it's cracking.
Alcolumbre denies making those phone calls. Do we know if he actually did?
The government believes he did, based on what senators told them. But his office flatly denies it. What matters more than the truth of the calls is that Lula's people are now certain Alcolumbre orchestrated this. Certainty, whether justified or not, shapes how they'll treat him going forward.
Why is the 6-to-1 work schedule such a big deal to Lula?
It's popular. Workers want it. If Lula can pass it, he has something tangible to point to in the election—proof that he delivered for ordinary people. But to get it through Congress, he needs votes. That's why some allies are saying don't burn bridges with Alcolumbre yet, even though he just humiliated you.
Is this actually the worst crisis since Dilma's impeachment?
One ally said so. That's a dramatic comparison, but it captures how destabilizing this feels. With Dilma, the outcome was clear and final. Here, Lula still has to govern with the same Congress that just rejected him, and he has to do it while running for reelection.
What does Flávio Bolsonaro gain from this?
He gets to say the system is broken, that Lula can't even control his own government, that the left is losing its grip. It's political oxygen for his campaign. Whether it actually moves votes in October is another question, but it gives him a narrative.
If Lula retaliates against Alcolumbre, what does that look like?
Cutting federal money to Amapá, blocking job appointments, withdrawing support for Alcolumbre's political allies. It's the machinery of executive power used as punishment. But it's also a gamble—it could escalate the conflict and make passing other legislation even harder.