A lawsuit filed by companies linked to Donald Trump and the Rumble platform against Justice Alexandre de Moraes has sparked intense legal debates. The case, led by attorney Martin De Luca, raises questions about the validity of the Brazilian magistrate's decisions abroad. However, the legal arguments used in the lawsuit present flaws that could compromise the case's progress in American courts.
For Daniel Toledolawyer specializing in International Law, founder of Toledo & Associates, an international law firm with offices in Brazil and the United States, one of the main problems with the lawsuit lies in the legal basis used to question Moraes's jurisdiction in the US. “The lawyer 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 error could compromise the credibility of the process from the outset,” reveals [the source].
Email Citation and Validity of the Procedure
Another central point in the process is the claim that the summons of the companies involved was invalid because it was made by email. De Luca argues that, in the United States, this type of summons would not be legally accepted. However, Toledo emphasizes that American law provides for the possibility of summons by electronic means in certain cases, provided they meet the procedural requirements.
"The most recent regulations on international legal cooperation allow for electronic processing of requests and even service by email, provided it is sent to the party's registered electronic address. This argument, therefore, is unlikely to be sufficient to invalidate the service. Furthermore, Rumble lists this email as the official contact for legal matters, which further weakens the argument that the service was irregular," he states.
Hague Convention and the Principle of Territoriality
The lawsuit also cites the Hague Convention to bolster the argument that the summons was invalid, but Toledo emphasizes that Brazil has made reservations to articles of this treaty, rendering some requirements inapplicable to the country. "American courts may understand that the summons followed the procedures allowed by current legislation, making the annulment of the procedural act improbable," he states.
Furthermore, another factor may hinder the process's advancement: territoriality. Even if arguments are made against Alexandre de Moraes' decisions, US courts may consider this an internal matter of Brazil, not subject to American judicial interference. "US courts may simply understand this to be a matter of national sovereignty, limiting the process's ability to move forward," he adds.
Given this scenario, the international law specialist believes the action has more potential 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 process can be used as a tool for pressure and political narrative, fueling a discourse against decisions made in Brazil,” they conclude.
