Trump Media and Rumble Refuse to Drop Their US Lawsuit Against Brazil’s Justice Moraes
Politics
Key Facts
—The case. Rumble and Trump Media are suing Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes in a US federal court in Florida over his orders to block social-media accounts.
—The latest move. On 14 July the two companies filed papers opposing Brazil’s request to throw the case out, keeping the lawsuit alive.
—Brazil’s argument. The government’s legal office, the AGU, says Moraes acted as a sitting judge, so his orders are shielded by state sovereign immunity under US law.
—The companies’ case. Rumble and Trump Media counter that Moraes overstepped by issuing orders that reach into the United States, in breach of free-speech protections.
—A first setback. A week earlier the judge gave the companies more time to respond — a small procedural loss for Brazil’s side.
—Why it matters. The case tests whether a Brazilian judge’s takedown orders carry any weight in the US, a flashpoint in the wider Washington–Brasília standoff over speech and tech.
The cross-border clash over online speech took another turn this week, as the Rumble and Trump Media lawsuit against Justice Alexandre de Moraes stayed alive in a US court. For a foreign reader, the fight comes down to one question: can a Brazilian judge order American platforms to remove accounts, and must the United States go along with it?
What the two companies are asking
Rumble, a video platform, and Trump Media and Technology Group, which runs Truth Social, sued Moraes in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida in early 2025. They want a US court to declare that his orders to block or remove accounts have no force inside the United States.
Their case rests on the First Amendment. The companies argue that Moraes, in demanding the removal of profiles and the handover of user data, reached across borders in a way that collides with American free-speech protections.
On 14 July they filed their formal response, urging the judge to keep the case going rather than dismiss it.
To understand why this matters, it helps to know that the First Amendment is unusually broad by global standards. It generally bars the government from restricting speech, and US courts are reluctant to enforce foreign judgments that would limit what Americans can say or publish online.
The companies are essentially asking a federal judge to draw a bright line at the US border.
Brazil’s sovereign-immunity defence
Brazil is not a passive spectator. Its Attorney General’s office, the AGU, entered the proceedings and asked the court to dismiss the action outright.
The AGU’s central claim is sovereign immunity. Under the US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, it argues, Moraes acted in his official role as a Supreme Court justice, which makes his decisions acts of the Brazilian state rather than personal conduct.
If the judge agrees, the case would end before reaching the substance. If not, a US court would be asked to weigh the reach of a foreign judge’s orders.
Sovereign immunity is a long-standing principle in international law. In plain terms, it means one country’s courts generally cannot sit in judgment over another country’s official acts.
The US codified this in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which lists narrow exceptions—such as commercial activity or certain human-rights violations. Brazil’s argument is that none of those exceptions apply here, because Moraes was performing a core judicial function.
A procedural setback for Brasília
The government’s side has already stumbled once. On 7 July, Judge Mary S.
Scriven granted the companies an extra week to respond to the dismissal request, pushing the deadline to 14 July.
Brazilian commentators framed the extension as a first, if minor, defeat for the AGU. It kept the clock running on a case Brasília had hoped to close quickly.
With the companies’ response now filed, the judge must decide whether the immunity argument holds or the lawsuit proceeds.
Procedural moments like this can carry outsized weight in cross-border litigation. A simple extension of time does not signal how the judge will rule on the merits, but it does show the court is willing to hear both sides fully rather than shutting the door at the earliest opportunity.
Why the fight matters beyond the courtroom
The dispute sits where two combustible themes meet: online speech and the strained relationship between Brasília and Washington. Moraes has become a lightning rod for critics who view his platform orders as overreach.
For the companies, a favourable ruling would signal that Brazilian takedown orders stop at the US border. For Brazil, a dismissal would affirm that its judges cannot be summoned before foreign courts for official acts.
Either way, the outcome will echo through a US-Brazil relationship already frayed by trade threats and political friction.
The broader significance is hard to overstate. Courts around the world are increasingly trying to police online content, from defamation to hate speech to election disinformation.
If a US court rules that foreign judges cannot enforce takedown orders on American soil, it could embolden platforms to resist similar demands from other countries. If the court instead accepts Brazil’s immunity argument, it would reinforce the traditional view that each nation’s judiciary is answerable only within its own legal system.
What to watch next
The immediate question is whether Judge Scriven will accept or reject Brazil’s sovereign-immunity defence. A ruling on that threshold issue could come in the weeks ahead, and it will determine whether the case moves into a deeper examination of the First Amendment claims.
Beyond the courtroom, observers will be watching how the Brazilian government reacts if the case proceeds. Will Brasília engage further in the US legal process, or will it rely on diplomatic channels to press its position?
Another open question is whether other platforms with similar grievances might join or file parallel suits. The case could also influence how US lawmakers think about legislation on foreign court orders and digital speech, a topic that has already drawn bipartisan interest in Congress.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is suing Alexandre de Moraes in the United States?
Rumble, a video-sharing platform, and Trump Media and Technology Group, the company behind Truth Social. They filed the case in a US federal court in Florida in 2025.
What is Brazil’s main defence?
The Brazilian government, through the AGU, argues sovereign immunity. It says Moraes acted as a Supreme Court justice, so his orders are official acts of the state and shielded from a foreign lawsuit under US law.
Why does this case matter for the US-Brazil relationship?
It tests whether a Brazilian judge’s orders to block online accounts have any effect in the United States. The answer touches free-speech law, digital sovereignty and an already tense diplomatic relationship.
Read More from The Rio Times