✓ verbatim from the press
The United States Justice system authorized on Tuesday (23) the entry of the Federative Republic of Brazil, represented by the Attorney General's Office (AGU), in the lawsuit filed by companies Rumble and Trump Media & Technology Group against Supreme Federal Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes. The decision, issued by Judge Mary Scriven of the Florida District Court, also denied the companies' request for Moraes to be judged in default and suspended the analysis of the AGU's request to dismiss the case. ✓
Press quotes (2)
"A Justiça dos Estados Unidos autorizou nesta terça-feira (23) o ingresso da República Federativa do Brasil na ação movida pelas empresas Rumble e Trump Media & Technology Group contra o ministro Alexandre de Moraes, do STF."
"Na mesma decisão, a magistrada negou o pedido das plataformas para que Moraes fosse julgado à revelia"
The lawsuit, filed in 2025 in the District Court for the Middle District of Florida (case No. 8:25-cv-00411-MSS-AAS, Tampa Division), challenges Moraes' decisions that ordered the removal or suspension of profiles on digital platforms. The companies argue that the orders violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression, and claim that such measures cannot be executed on American territory. Trump Media maintains that it depends on Rumble's technological infrastructure to operate the Truth Social network, although it was not a direct target of the STF's determinations. ✓
Press quotes (3)
"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION RUMBLE INC. and TRUMP MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY GROUP CORP. Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. v. 8:25-cv-00411-MSS-AAS ALEXANDRE DE MORAES, Justice of the Supreme Federal Tribunal of the Federative Republic of Brazil Defendant."
"As empresas argumentam que as ordens violariam a Primeira Emenda da Constituição dos Estados Unidos, que garante a liberdade de expressão."
"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION RUMBLE INC. and TRUMP MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY GROUP CORP. Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. v. 8:25-cv-00411-MSS-AAS ALEXANDRE DE MORAES, Justice of the Supreme Federal Tribunal of the Federative Republic of Brazil Defe"
The intervention request was filed by the AGU on June 15. In the motion, the attorney's office argued that the action involves decisions made by the STF in the exercise of its constitutional powers and maintained that foreign courts cannot review Brazilian jurisdictional acts. The AGU also invoked immunity from jurisdiction under international law and recognized by US legislation, as well as immunity of foreign public agents, the act of state doctrine, and principles of international comity to defend the termination of the action. ✓
Press quotes (1)
"O pedido de intervenção foi protocolado pelo governo brasileiro no último dia 15. Na manifestação, a AGU argumentou que a ação envolve decisões tomadas pelo STF no exercício de suas competências constitucionais e sustentou que tribunais estrangeiros não podem revisar atos jurisdicionais brasileiros."
The companies had requested Moraes' default arguing that the justice was served by email in May, through an alternative procedure authorized by the court itself, and that the deadline for response ended on June 15 without a statement. The previous attempt at formal notification by letter rogatory was denied by the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) in March 2026. According to the STJ, the measure could not be executed under Brazilian legislation, which prevents such citation of an STF justice in the country to respond to a lawsuit in American Justice. ✓
Press quotes (2)
"Elas diziam que Moraes havia sido citado por email em maio, por meio de um procedimento alternativo autorizado pela própria corte, e que o prazo para resposta terminou em 15 de junho sem manifestação do ministro."
"Com a decisão, Moraes não poderá ser citado no Brasil para responder ao processo que tramita na Justiça americana. O tribunal entendeu que a medida não pode ser executada à luz da legislação brasileira."
With Brazil's entry into the case, the judge ordered the companies to submit, within 14 days, a formal response to the Brazilian defense's arguments. The final decision on the dismissal of the case was postponed, and the possibility of declaring the justice in default for failure to appoint a defender was suspended. ✓
Press quotes (2)
"Ao admitir o ingresso do Brasil, a juíza determinou que as empresas autoras da ação apresentem, em até 14 dias, resposta à demanda."
"A decisão suspende a possibilidade de decretação de revelia contra o ministro pela falta de indicação de um defensor para atuar no processo."
US Justice authorized Brazil's entry into the case and denied the request for Moraes' default in the same decision on June 23
AGU requested dismissal of the case arguing that foreign courts cannot review Brazilian jurisdictional acts
STJ denied Rumble's letter rogatory to serve Moraes in March 2026
Covered by only some sources, or where the accounts diverge.
Covered by only some sources (4)
Judge's decision also postponed analysis of AGU's motion to dismiss the case
Among the targets of Moraes' decisions are accounts linked to influencers and Jair Bolsonaro supporters, including blogger Allan dos Santos
Trump Media depends on Rumble's technological infrastructure to operate Truth Social network
-
Which specific profiles were targeted by Moraes' decisions that the companies are contesting?
Why it's still unknown: Coverage mentions generically that the decisions affected accounts linked to influencers and Jair Bolsonaro supporters, citing only blogger Allan dos Santos as an example. No source lists the specific profiles or quantifies the total number of affected accounts.
-
What is Alexandre de Moraes' formal position on the lawsuit filed in the United States?
Why it's still unknown: None of the consulted outlets report a statement or manifestation from the justice himself about the case. Coverage only records that he did not respond to the email notification within the deadline established by the American court.
-
What is the specific legal basis of the AGU's motion to dismiss and what precedents are invoked?
Why it's still unknown: Coverage mentions that the AGU invoked immunity from jurisdiction, act of state doctrine, and principles of international comity, but no outlet details the specific legal precedents cited by the attorney's office or the complete argumentation presented to the American court.
-
What is the procedural calendar expected after the companies' response in 14 days?
Why it's still unknown: The judge's decision set a 14-day deadline for the companies' response, but no source specifies the next procedural steps, deadlines for Brazil's reply, or when the court should decide on the motion to dismiss.