Video streaming platform Rumble and Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent company of Truth Social, have filed a lawsuit against controversial Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, accusing him of unconstitutional censorship that violates US law.
The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida, claims that Moraes has engaged in “ultra vires” (beyond his legal authority) actions to silence political dissent and force American companies to comply with extraterritorial gag orders.
We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.
At the center of the case are alleged secret directives from Moraes, ordering Rumble to suspend accounts belonging to a US-based Brazilian political dissident, identified in the lawsuit as “Political Dissident A.” Moraes’ orders also prohibit Rumble from allowing the dissident to create new accounts and impose strict penalties for noncompliance, including daily fines and a potential shutdown of the platform in Brazil.
According to the complaint, the orders are an attempt to enforce Brazilian speech restrictions on American soil. “Justice Moraes has issued sweeping orders to suspend multiple US-based accounts… ensuring no person in the United States can see [Political Dissident A’s] content,” the plaintiffs state.
The lawsuit further argues that these orders “censor legitimate political discourse in the United States, undermining fundamental constitutional protections enshrined in the First Amendment.”
Impact on American Free Speech
Rumble, a Florida-based video platform, and Truth Social argue that complying with the gag orders would set a dangerous precedent for foreign censorship influencing American platforms.
“Allowing Justice Moraes to muzzle a vocal user on an American digital outlet would jeopardize our country’s bedrock commitment to open and robust debate,” the lawsuit states.
The companies also allege that Moraes has ignored international legal frameworks, such as the US-Brazil Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), which provides a formal process for cross-border legal actions. Instead, they argue, he has resorted to coercive tactics.
“Rather than submitting a formal request through proper channels, Justice Moraes issued orders compelling Rumble, a US-based company with no presence or operations in Brazil, to appoint local attorneys solely for the purpose of accepting service of his censorship mandates,” the complaint states.
Broader Concerns Over Free Speech
Moraes, who has been at the forefront of Brazil’s controversial “Fake News Inquiry,” has drawn international criticism for his aggressive measures against political speech. The lawsuit cites reports that he has ordered the suspension of nearly 150 accounts belonging to journalists, legislators, and other critics of Brazil’s government.
The complaint also references comments made by US Vice President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference earlier this month, where he denounced global trends of judicial censorship. “We know very well in America that you cannot win a democratic mandate by censoring your opponents or putting them in jail,” Vance stated. The plaintiffs argue that Moraes’s actions are an example of such overreach.
Rumble and TMTG are asking the court to declare Moraes’s orders unenforceable in the United States, citing violations of the First Amendment and the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The lawsuit argues that enforcing the Brazilian orders would “compel the suspension of accounts and block entire categories of political speech,” in direct conflict with US laws protecting online platforms from liability for user-generated content.
They are also seeking an injunction to prevent companies like Google and Apple from removing the Rumble app due to the Brazilian orders. The complaint warns that if tech giants comply with Moraes’s demands, “the shutdown could intensify, depriving American service providers like Rumble and platforms like Truth Social of lawful expression and shutting off millions of US users from robust political debate.”
The case raises significant questions about the ability of foreign governments to impose censorship rules on US-based platforms. If successful, the lawsuit could set a legal precedent reaffirming the limits of international judicial overreach.
Moraes has not publicly responded to the lawsuit, and it remains unclear whether the Brazilian government will intervene. However, the plaintiffs argue that this case is about more than just one dissident—it is about safeguarding American free speech from foreign interference.
As the complaint puts it: “Only American law—rooted in the First Amendment—should regulate and govern these US-based companies and their American operations.”
Justice Alexandre de Moraes has become a central figure in Brazil’s escalating crackdown on political dissent, leveraging his position on the Supreme Federal Tribunal (STF) to implement sweeping censorship measures. Since assuming his post in 2017, following the death of Justice Teori Zavascki, Moraes has increasingly used his judicial power to suppress speech he deems “anti-democratic” or “misinformation.”
His aggressive stance on censorship gained global attention in 2019 when he spearheaded Brazil’s controversial Fake News Inquiry, an unprecedented investigation that allowed the STF to unilaterally open cases, bypassing the Public Prosecutor’s Office. This move drew widespread criticism, with legal scholars and human rights organizations warning that the STF was acting as both judge and prosecutor, effectively eroding due process and the separation of powers.
Under Moraes’s watch, censorship in Brazil has reached alarming new heights. He has issued secret takedown orders against journalists, conservative politicians, and social media influencers, forcing platforms like X, YouTube, and Facebook to remove accounts critical of the Brazilian government. In a 2020 purge, he mandated the removal of 16 X accounts and 12 Facebook accounts linked to supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro, using vague claims of “disinformation” as justification. By 2022, his censorship efforts had expanded to include nearly 150 targeted account suspensions, effectively silencing opposition voices. Moraes has even gone beyond digital suppression—he has ordered asset freezes, passport revocations, and arrests of individuals accused of spreading so-called “fake news.”
Over the past year, a significant conflict has unfolded between Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, and Justice Moraes. The dispute began when X refused to comply with Brazilian court orders to block accounts accused of disseminating misinformation and hate speech, many of which were supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro. Moraes responded by imposing substantial daily fines and, in August 2024, ordered the suspension of X’s operations in Brazil. Musk publicly criticized Moraes, labeling him an “evil dictator” and accusing him of undermining democracy.
Despite initial resistance, X eventually complied with the court’s demands, including removing specified accounts and paying accumulated fines totaling approximately $4 million. In October 2024, Justice de Moraes lifted the suspension, allowing X to resume operations in Brazil.
