Rumble and Trump Media & Technology Group have petitioned a U.S. court in Florida to enter a default judgment against Brazilian Supreme Court minister Alexandre de Moraes [1].
This legal move highlights a growing conflict between American tech companies and Brazilian judicial authorities over the boundaries of national sovereignty and digital speech. The outcome could set a precedent for how U.S. courts handle lawsuits against foreign officials exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction.
The platforms allege that Moraes issued secret censorship orders that extended beyond Brazil's borders to affect their operations [1]. According to the petition, these orders constituted an unlawful attempt to control content on platforms based in the United States [1].
The request for a default judgment, known in Brazil as *revelia*, stems from the allegation that Moraes failed to respond to the lawsuit within the deadline established by the court [2]. Because the minister did not submit a timely answer, the companies said that a judgment in absentia is justified [4].
Reports on the filing date vary slightly between outlets. O Globo said the petition was filed on 18 June 2026 [5], while other sources cited 19 June 2026 [2].
The Brazilian government's response to the litigation remains inconsistent across reports. O Globo said that the Attorney General’s Office (AGU) announced it would intervene to defend Brazil’s interests [5]. However, Veja said that the AGU requested the case be dismissed entirely [3].
This legal strategy by Rumble and Trump Media seeks to bypass the traditional diplomatic channels and immunity typically afforded to high-ranking foreign judicial officers. By focusing on the missed procedural deadline, the companies are attempting to secure a victory without the need for a full trial on the merits of the censorship claims [2].
“Rumble and Trump Media & Technology Group have petitioned a U.S. court in Florida to enter a default judgment against Brazilian Supreme Court minister Alexandre de Moraes”
This case tests the legal friction between the U.S. First Amendment protections and the judicial mandates of foreign governments. If a U.S. court grants a default judgment against a sitting member of the Brazilian Supreme Court, it could escalate diplomatic tensions and create a legal blueprint for other tech firms to challenge foreign content moderation orders in domestic courts.
