Owner of Trump's Truth Social and Rumble sued a Brazilian judge in a US court, claiming censorship of right-wing voices
Thomson Reuters
- President Donald Trump's media company sued a Brazilian judge in a Florida court on Wednesday.
- The lawsuit accused Justice Alexandre de Moraes of undermining First Amendment rights.
- The lawsuit comes after Moraes received an indictment related to former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro.
President Donald Trump's media company sued a Brazilian Supreme Court judge, claiming that he censored right-wing voices on social media.
Trump Media & Technology Group, the owner of Truth Social; and Rumble, an online video network platform, accused Justice Alexandre de Moraes of censoring political discourse in the United States and claimed that he undermined the First Amendment.
The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Tampa, Florida, on Wednesday and was first reported by The New York Times.
The legal action came as de Moraes was deciding whether to arrest former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro.
Bolsonaro was charged with masterminding and attempting a coup to cling to power after losing Brazil's presidential election in 2022.
Brazil's chief prosecutor brought five charges against Bolsonaro, a Trump ally. They include allegations that he planned to kill de Moraes and poison President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
TMTG and Rumble, which say they are bastions of free speech and are popular with MAGA supporters, said in the lawsuit that de Moraes had "issued sweeping orders to suspend multiple U.S.-based accounts."
The plaintiffs said the judge wanted to remove accounts he labeled "anti-democratic" and targeted high-profile conservative social media users. They seek a jury trial and permanent injunctive relief.
De Moraes has styled himself as a protector of democracy with his rulings.
In August, the judge ordered Elon Musk's X to halt operations in Brazil until it complied with court orders and paid fines.
Martin De Luca, the Boies Schiller Flexner partner representing Rumble in the lawsuit, said: "We have asked the court to determine whether a foreign judge can unilaterally dictate what speech is allowed in the United States."
He added that the case was about "protecting America's digital sovereignty."
Ueslei Marcelino/Reuters
Joseph Russomanno, a professor specializing in First Amendment and media law at Arizona State University, told Business Insider by email that he couldn't comment on the part that international and Brazilian law might play in the case.
However, he said that the complaint "seems to have a good chance of succeeding largely because of the First Amendment element."
A key consideration would be the plaintiffs' ability to demonstrate that de Moraes' gag order lacks legitimacy, particularly regarding the First Amendment's protection of press freedoms.
The plaintiffs have argued that legitimate political discourse was censored — and "political speech generally has the highest level of protection," Russomanno said.
Another factor would be why de Moraes issued the orders, he said: "For example, does the content of these organizations endanger public safety?"
This type of lawsuit was not unprecedented, Russomanno said, pointing to a 1976 Supreme Court ruling — Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart — that could offer guidance.