Story
Sep 17, 2026
Lula Draws a Line From Moraes to Temer as Rivals Push the Link
Lula’s response to the Supreme Court crisis balances distance and defense: he stresses that Alexandre de Moraes was appointed by Michel Temer, while crediting the justice’s electoral work. Opponents, however, argue that political responsibility matters more than the formal record of who made the nomination.
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has sought to separate his administration from Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes amid scrutiny involving Banco Master, emphasizing that Moraes was nominated to the court by former President Michel Temer in 2017—not by Lula.
Lula’s argument is rooted in the appointment record, but it also carries a political message aimed at countering opposition attempts to make Moraes a liability in the election campaign. In an interview, Lula said, “I was not president when Alexandre de Moraes was nominated as a minister of the Supreme Court.” He added that Moraes had rendered “two great services to Brazilian democracy,” citing his leadership of the electoral court during the 2022 election. 1
The president’s position is not an outright defense of every action by the justice. Lula said any official who committed wrongdoing should face a fair trial and consequences, explicitly including Moraes among those who should receive no special treatment. His allies also point to Moraes’s previous clashes with the Workers’ Party, including his 2018 vote against Lula’s habeas corpus request.
On the right, the interpretation is markedly different. Critics contend that Lula cannot fully distance himself from Moraes simply because Temer made the appointment. A report in Revista Oeste said right-wing politicians have linked the president and the justice amid the Banco Master case, while commentator José Benedito da Silva described Moraes as “a rather toxic asset” for Lula. 2
That message has been amplified online. Commentator Rodrigo Constantino wrote: “Lula is Moraes, Moraes is Lula,” framing the justice’s difficulties as a direct political problem for the president. 
3
The competing accounts agree on one point: Moraes’s role has become central to the campaign debate. They diverge over what that means—whether Lula’s formal lack of responsibility for the nomination settles the issue, or whether his support for Moraes’s institutional role leaves the two politically connected.