Amid intense political polarization in Brazil and the growth of opinion channels on social media, the name of Minister Alexandre de Moraes has returned to the center of discussions following rumors about possible international sanctions against his work at the Supreme Federal Court (STF)..
Speculation gained momentum after the release of an alleged letter from the United States government to the minister, warning him about his “abuse of authority.” The case provoked heated reactions from political commentators and influencers, who began predicting asset freezes, visa cancellations, and even imprisonment under the so-called “Magnitsky Act.”
For the lawyer Daniel Toledo, specialist in International Law, PhD in Constitutional Law and founder of the firm Toledo and Associated Lawyers, caution and technical knowledge are required when approaching the topic. “Many videos and posts are propagating a series of legal misconceptions. The Magnitsky Act, for example, has very specific objectives. It was created in the US in 2012 to punish those involved in serious human rights violations and international corruption. It does not automatically apply to any foreign authority,” he warns.
Toledo emphasizes that, even in cases where sanctions are imposed, as occurred with Russian authorities during the war in Ukraine, there is no direct link to domestic judicial decisions or political actions of a sovereign country. “It’s important to remember that the United States doesn’t need the Magnitsky Act to restrict visas or freeze assets. The U.S. government already has administrative means to do so. And, to date, there is no evidence that these sanctions are being applied to Supreme Court justices,” he notes.
The role of YouTube and the censorship debate
Part of the controversy also involves decisions by Justice Alexandre de Moraes regarding the removal of content and profiles on platforms such as YouTube and X (formerly Twitter). The debate escalated after entrepreneur Elon Musk challenged the Supreme Court’s rulings, arguing that his company should not be penalized for complying with US law.
For Toledo, platforms operating commercially in Brazil must comply with Brazilian law. “If a foreign company operates in Brazil, offers services, and profits from advertising targeted at Brazilians, it is subject to local laws. This includes, for example, the Brazilian Internet Civil Rights Framework and the Consumer Protection Code. The same applies to tax obligations, legal representation, and liability for illicit content hosted on its domains,” he explains.
He points out that, although court decisions can be discussed and eventually reviewed, ignoring them can constitute disobedience and lead to measures such as blocking and economic sanctions. “The impasse with Elon Musk, for example, is not about freedom of expression, but about jurisdiction. The Supreme Federal Court found that the platform was being used to disseminate content that violated Brazilian law and demanded action. Discussing the measure is legitimate. Completely ignoring it is not,” he points out.
Distorted interpretations of the law fuel misinformation
Toledo also criticizes the way influencers have interpreted sections of American and Brazilian laws to support theories about the alleged international siege of Moraes. “It’s common to see people without legal training taking isolated paragraphs and distorting the original meaning of the laws. The Magnitsky Act, for example, doesn’t provide for automatic punishments. It requires investigations, concrete evidence, and a careful application process,” he analyzes.
He notes that the internet has become fertile ground for sensationalism. “Many channels are more concerned with monetizing engagement than with legally clarifying what’s happening. By doing so, they inflame the public, generate unrealistic expectations, and contribute to the discrediting of institutions,” he states.
A critical point, according to Toledo, is that this scenario of misinformation ends up having concrete impacts on people’s lives. “Many people are beginning to believe that a minister will be arrested by a letter from the United States. Others think that obtaining dual citizenship is enough to avoid being held accountable by Brazilian justice. These are completely misguided views that only fuel instability,” he emphasizes.
He also points out that, in cases where a Supreme Court justice is sued in international courts, the taxpayer bears the defense costs. “Lawsuits of this nature are expensive. Law firms in the US charge extremely high hourly rates. If a Brazilian justice is sued abroad for his or her work, the costs will be covered by public funds. It’s the citizen who foots the bill,” he warns.
Freedom of expression is not anonymity
Finally, Toledo reinforces that the Brazilian Constitution guarantees freedom of expression but prohibits anonymity. “Anyone can express themselves freely, including criticizing authorities. However, they must identify themselves and answer for their statements. Creating fake profiles or anonymous pages to spread unsubstantiated accusations is not freedom of expression. It’s cowardly and, often, a crime,” he concludes.
The lawyer argues that the debate about the limits of the Judiciary and freedom of the press is legitimate, but must be conducted responsibly. “We need more legal education and less spectacle. Legal truth cannot be found in inflammatory headlines. It requires study, thoughtfulness, and commitment to the facts,” he concludes.
