How to Become a Justice of the Brazilian Supreme Court in 2025: Be a Political and Religious Man

Mariana Kato

Mariana Almeida Kato is a Teaching Associate at the University of Nottingham.

On 9 October 2025, Justice Luis Roberto Barroso of the Brazilian Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal – STF) announced his premature retirement, leading to calls for the appointment of a female justice. However, the nomination of Jorge Messias on 20 November 2025 (who still needs to be confirmed by the Senate) follows the trend of recent nomination practices, favouring political preferences over any other criteria, including those which would promote a better gender balance on the highest court in Brazil.

The Theory and Practice of STF Appointments

According to Article 101, para. 1 of the Brazilian Constitution, the President has the authority to appoint justices to the STF, subject to approval by the Senate. In practice, the nomination of a candidate is preceded by an informal co-optation process involving members of the government, Congress, and even STF justices. They constitute an informal committee with the power to establish a pool of potential candidates, evaluate them, and either advance or obstruct their candidacy to the Court. The candidates are also not completely passive in this process. They often engage in a race to create sufficient political conditions for their appointment, as openly acknowledged by Justice Luiz Fux.

Regarding the criteria for this decision, according to the same article of the Constitution, the candidate must be a natural-born Brazilian citizen aged 35 to 65 with “notable legal expertise” and an “unblemished reputation” – two expressions that offer little certainty but give broad scope for the President to decide, and, equally important, scope for critics to challenge their choice. For instance, there has been debate on how the “notable legal expertise” requirement should be interpreted. In 2009, Justice Dias Toffoli's nomination faced criticism due to his lack of a postgraduate degree and his unsuccessful bid to become a state judge. As per the “unblemished reputation” criterion, this relates to the candidate’s moral character, which is similarly open to interpretation. In 2019, Justice Alexandre de Moraes’ nomination faced criticism for his behaviour in his previous government positions.

Political Loyalty and Religion as Recently Added Criteria

As the STF has gained greater prominence, discussions about the criteria for appointments have shifted from those established in the Constitution to focus mainly on the political alignment of the candidate. In 2023, the appointments of Justice Cristiano Zanin, President Lula’s former personal lawyer and Justice Flavio Dino, former Minister of Justice under President Lula, confirm the importance of the candidate’s loyalty to the political agenda of the President. Moreover, due to increasing polarisation of the electorate and the resulting fragmentation of the legislature, the religion of the candidate has also become a relevant factor. Notably, being an evangelical Christian is seen as especially favourable, as they constitute one of the most influential political groups in Congress. For instance, this was a decisive factor in Jair Bolsonaro's appointment of Justice André Mendonça in 2021.

The recent nomination of Jorge Messias, a former Attorney General of the government and an evangelical Christian, follows this trend, raising important criticism. The loyalty to the President undermines the independence of the STF and the impartiality of its members, who are already not perceived as such by the majority of the population. While it may not be unconstitutional, that hardly means it is desirable. Regarding the candidate’s religion, having justices with diverse religious beliefs might improve the quality of debates, provided such beliefs do not undermine their role. The main problem is that, in today’s political context, religion is valued less for fostering ideological plurality and more as a form of political capital that can be deployed to secure support from the Evangelical Front in Congress and its electorate.

(Male-)Gender as a Traditional Selective Criterion  

The nomination of Jorge Messias also follows a deeply rooted criterion in the history of the STF’s appointments: that of prioritising male candidates over female candidates. In its 134-year history, only three women have been appointed to the Court: Justice Ellen Gracie, who retired in 2011; Justice Rosa Weber, who retired in 2023; and Justice Cármen Lúcia, currently the only woman at the STF.

The issue is not provided for in the Constitution. A large number of candidates with diverse profiles meet the constitutional requirements for appointment to the STF. In 2024, 50% of lawyers in Brazil were women; in 2023, 38% of lower court judges and 40% of appellate court judges were also women. It is not a matter of women being politically unimportant, as they make up the majority of the Brazilian electorate. The problem is also not that the decision lies in the hands of the President, as it is unlikely that giving this power to a different political authority would change the existing problems. The other candidate considered for this appointment, advanced by the President of the Senate, was also a man.

Women do not make the pool of candidates because they seem to lack the necessary political connections – those that are made at dinners and in closed-door conversations in male-dominated spaces. Despite their numbers, women comprise only 17.5% of the elected politicians in Brazil. If they are not present in the political arena and have limited access to the circle of political trust surrounding the nomination process, it is unsurprising that they face greater difficulty entering the STF arena.

Moving Forward

To change the practices that presently privilege political power over other relevant criteria, journalists, legal scholars, and members of civil society all have a role to play. This role is not fulfilled by promoting candidates intentionally leaked to the press or by speculating about potential nominees, as has become common in this context. Rather, it is fulfilled by monitoring the nomination process and demanding that the accountable political actors involved make decisions based on the interests of the Court, rather than on political preferences or contingencies. As for the Senate, its President has been threatening to reject the nomination of Jorge Messias because it does not align with his own political preferences. However, the Senate’s role is not to advance its own loyal candidates but to promote a meaningful discussion about the nominated candidate.

The recent movement involving the legal community and the press, calling for more diversity and more women at the STF, is already a step towards promoting better discussions about the nomination process. The relevant discussion is not why the nominee should have been a woman, but rather why the nominee was not a woman. President Lula said that gender does not matter here. Yet when the practice consistently favours one gender over the other, it becomes difficult to deny that gender does, in fact, matter. It matters to those who decide who enters the pool of candidates, just as it matters to those who have long been included in private dinners and corridor conversations. And if gender matters to men, why should it not matter to women as well?

Mariana Almeida Kato is a Teaching Associate at the University of Nottingham.

Suggested Citation: Mariana Almeida Kato, ‘How to Become a Justice of the Brazilian Supreme Court in 2025: Be a Political and Religious Man’ IACL-AIDC Blog (8 December 2025) How to Become a Justice of the Brazilian Supreme Court in 2025: Be a Political and Religious Man — IACL-IADC Blog