A lawsuit filed by companies linked to Donald Trump and the Rumble platform against Minister Alexandre de Moraes has sparked intense legal debates. The process, conducted by lawyer Martin De Luca, raises questions about the validity of the decisions made by the Brazilian magistrate abroad. However, the legal grounds used in the case have flaws that could jeopardize the progress of the case in American courts.
ToDaniel Toledo, a lawyer working in the area of International Law, founder ofToledo and AssociatesInternational law firm with offices in Brazil and the United States, one of the main issues of the case lies in the legal basis used to challenge Moraes's jurisdiction in the USA. "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 very beginning," he reveals.
Citation by email and validity of the procedure
Another central point of the process is the claim that the notification of the involved companies was not valid, as it was made via email. De Luca argues that, in the United States, this type of citation would not be legally accepted. However, Toledo emphasizes that American legislation provides for the possibility of electronic service in certain cases, as long as the procedural requirements are met.
“The most recent regulations on international legal cooperation allow for the electronic processing of requests and even citation by email, as long as it is sent to the party’s registered email address. This argument, therefore, is unlikely to be sufficient to invalidate the citation. Furthermore, Rumble lists this email as the official contact for legal matters, which further weakens the argument that the citation was irregular,” he states.
Hague Convention and the principle of territoriality
The action also mentions the Hague Convention to reinforce the argument that the summons would not have been valid, but Toledo points out that Brazil 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 unlikely," he states.
Furthermore, there is another factor that may hinder the progress of the process: territoriality. Even if arguments are made against Alexandre de Moraes's decisions, U.S. courts may consider this a domestic issue of Brazil and that there is no room for interference by the American justice system. "U.S. courts can simply understand that this is a matter of national sovereignty, which limits the ability of the process to move forward," he adds.
In this context, the International Law expert believes that the action has more potential to generate political repercussions than practical effects on the American judicial system. From a legal standpoint, the chances of a significant outcome are small. However, the process can be used as a tool for pressure and political narrative, fueling a discourse against the decisions made in Brazil, he concludes.
