A federal court in Florida allowed the Brazilian government to participate in a lawsuit filed by Rumble and Trump Media against Justice Alexandre de Moraes [1].
This ruling represents a critical procedural shift in a legal battle involving high-profile tech platforms and a senior member of Brazil's Supreme Federal Court. By admitting the Brazilian government into the proceedings, the court acknowledges the state's direct interest in the outcome of the litigation.
The decision was issued on Tuesday, June 23 [1]. The court's ruling specifically accepted the participation of the Advocacia-Geral da União (AGU), which serves as the legal representative for the Brazilian government [1], [3].
In a separate move, the judge rejected a request to rule against Justice Moraes by default [1], [2]. The plaintiffs had sought a judgment in absentia, but the court determined that a default judgment was inappropriate because the justice had not yet been properly notified [3], [5].
Because the request for default judgment was denied, the court also postponed its analysis regarding a request to dismiss the case entirely [1], [2]. The judge said that the Brazilian government's interest in the case was evident, though the legal process regarding the notification of the defendant must still be completed [3].
The case involves the Southern District of Florida [1], [3]. It centers on the actions taken by Justice Moraes in his capacity as a member of the Brazilian judiciary and how those actions intersect with the operations of U.S.-based media companies [1], [4].
“The court's ruling specifically accepted the participation of the Advocacia-Geral da União.”
The court's refusal to grant a default judgment indicates that the U.S. judiciary is prioritizing due process and proper notification over a swift resolution. By allowing the AGU to join, the court is effectively transforming a private corporate dispute into a matter of international legal cooperation, ensuring that the Brazilian state can defend its institutional interests before a final ruling is made on the merits of the case.
