Trump Media and Technology Group, which runs Trump’s preferred social media platform Truth Social, has joined forces with conservative-leaning social media company Rumble in the case, suing Alexandre de Moraes, a justice of the Brazilian Supreme Court who is weighing whether to order the arrest of Brazil’s former President Jair Bolsonaro for an alleged coup.
Trump Media and Rumble accuse Moraes of violating the US First Amendment for ordering the shutdown or removal of the Rumble social media accounts of an unidentified US-based right-wing Brazilian commentator and Bolsonaro supporter across the entire platform in all countries.
Though Moraes is not an American citizen or based in the United States, the case was filed in Florida because Trump Media and Rumble want an American judge to declare Moraes’ orders unenforceable in the United States.
“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 complaint states. “Neither extraterritorial dictates nor judicial overreach from abroad can override the freedoms protected by the U.S. Constitution and law.”
Trump’s social media platform is not a target of Moraes’ orders aimed at the Brazilian commentator, but Truth Social relies on Rumble’s infrastructure for its platform and argued that anything affecting Rumble’s operations “would necessarily interfere with Truth Social’s operations as well.”
“If Justice Moraes’s actions were confined to Brazil, they would be regrettable, and likely not in the province of U.S. Courts,” the complaint states. “But many of Justice Moraes’s actions, including the illegal Gag Orders challenged here, reach directly into the United States to compel action by U.S. companies having no presence in Brazil, and which will have the effect of suppressing speech not just in Brazil, but in the United States and throughout the world.”
Trump Media’s Chairman Devin Nunes said in a statement Wednesday that the company is “firmly committed to upholding the right to free expression.”
“This is not just a slogan, it’s the core mission of this company,” he said. “We’re proud to join our partner Rumble in standing against unjust demands for political censorship regardless of who makes them.”
The case comes one day after Brazil’s former President Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump ally, was charged in connection with an alleged coup plot to overturn the results of the 2022 election and keep his opponent from taking power. The plot allegedly included plans to assassinate Moraes, who blocked Bolsonaro’s party request to overturn the 2022 election results. Bolsonaro, who has denied knowledge of the assassination plans, has accused Moraes of political persecution, not only targeting himself but also conservative voices in the country for ordering the shutdown of hundreds of social media accounts.
Moraes has also clashed with X owner and top Trump donor Elon Musk. X had been suspended in Brazil, one of its largest and most-coveted markets, in late August after not complying with court orders from Moraes related to hate speech moderation and failing to name a legal representative in the country, as required by law. Musk called Moraes a “dictator” and called the orders censorship, but Musk later complied with the court orders and X came back online in Brazil in October.
Daphne Keller, who teaches internet law at Stanford University, told CNN the Trump Media case is the first she’s seen of its kind.
“They’re asking for two things. One is for the court to confirm that there is no way that the order is enforceable in the United States,” Keller said. “The other thing they’re asking for is they want an American court to order a Brazilian supreme court justice to not do something, to not ask app stores to remove Rumble and Truth Social – something I’ve never seen before.”
While the complaint brings up important and interesting points of First Amendment rights and global law, it may be mostly for show, Keller said, considering there’s no way US law enforcement would carry out a foreign court’s order.
“It’s kind of performative to make a lot of noise about free speech and file this case when the thing you’re asking for isn’t going to do you any good,” she said.
Keller said that while the complaint addresses a significant issue – a judge trying to enforce a global takedown – the courts may not be the right venue.
“I don’t think going to US courts is a way to fix this – a normal administration would call for diplomatic response or trade responses … rather than going to court,” Keller said.
About The Author
