A lawsuit filed by companies linked to Donald Trump and the Rumble platform against Minister Alexandre de Moraes has sparked intense legal debates. The case, handled by attorney Martin De Luca, raises questions about the validity of the Brazilian magistrate’s decisions abroad. However, the legal reasoning used in the lawsuit contains flaws that could jeopardize the case’s progress in American courts.
For Daniel Toledo, an attorney specializing in International Law and founder of Toledo e Associados, an international law firm with offices in Brazil and the United States, one of the main issues with the lawsuit lies in the legal basis adopted to challenge Moraes’ jurisdiction in the U.S. ‘The attorney responsible for the case cited a treaty signed between Brazil and the United States in 2001 as a reference. However, this treaty was replaced in 2006 and updated in 2015. This mistake could undermine the case’s credibility from the outset,’ he reveals.
Service by email and validity of the procedure
Another central point of the lawsuit is the claim that the summons served to the involved companies would not be valid because it was done via email. De Luca argues that, in the United States, this type of service would not be legally accepted. However, Toledo points out that U.S. legislation allows for electronic service in certain cases, provided that procedural requirements are met.
‘The most recent regulations on international legal cooperation allow for electronic processing of requests and even service by email, as long as it is sent to the party’s registered email address. Therefore, this argument is unlikely to be sufficient to invalidate the service. Moreover, Rumble lists this email as the official contact for legal matters, which further weakens the argument that the summons was irregular,’ he states.
Hague Convention and the principle of territoriality
The lawsuit also mentions the Hague Convention to reinforce the argument that the service would not be valid, but Toledo notes that Brazil made reservations to certain articles of this treaty, making some requirements inapplicable to the country. ‘U.S. courts may conclude that the service followed the procedures permitted by current legislation, making it unlikely that the procedural act will be annulled,’ he says.
Additionally, there is another factor that could hinder the case’s progress: territoriality. Even if arguments are made against Alexandre de Moraes’ decisions, U.S. courts may consider this an internal matter of Brazil and not subject to interference by American justice. ‘U.S. courts may simply view this as a matter of national sovereignty, which limits the lawsuit’s ability to proceed,’ he adds.
Given this scenario, the International Law expert believes the lawsuit is more likely to generate political repercussions than practical effects in the American judicial system. ‘From a legal standpoint, the chances of a significant outcome are slim. However, the case could be used as a tool for political pressure and narrative, fueling discourse against decisions made in Brazil,’ he concludes.
