A Brazilian Supreme Court justice is now being forced to answer in an American federal case, and the question on the table is simple.
Can a foreign judge use sealed overseas orders to pressure U.S. companies into silencing speech that Americans can see inside the United States?
President Trump’s media company, Trump Media & Technology Group, and Rumble say no. They sued Brazilian Supreme Federal Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Trump Media operates Truth Social. Rumble provides video and cloud infrastructure used by Truth Social.
Together, the companies are asking an American court to decide where foreign court power stops and U.S. speech protections begin.
Trump Media and Rumble had served Moraes and asked the clerk to enter a default after he failed to personally answer by the deadline. Brazil then stepped in to intervene and move for dismissal.
On June 23, 2026, Judge Mary Scriven let Brazil into the case, deferred ruling on Brazil’s dismissal motion, vacated and stayed the default directive, and denied the clerk-default request without prejudice. She gave the plaintiffs 14 days to respond to Brazil’s motion.
So the case lives on. The censorship question moves forward.
Counsel on the case posted the current reporting and pointed straight at the core legal issue.
“The fight could shape the limits of whether foreign officials may seek to enforce censorship related orders against U.S. based platforms, users located in the U.S., and data stored under U.S. legal protections.”https://t.co/K8jubunpOX
— Martin De Luca (@emd_worldwide) June 25, 2026
The Washington Examiner reported that the lawsuit has turned into a broader clash between American free-speech protections and Brazil’s attempt to police online speech through orders issued overseas. The outlet noted that Moraes has become a major conservative target after earlier orders against social media platforms, including orders tied to accounts accused of spreading disinformation.
According to the report, Trump Media and Rumble say the Brazilian judge’s directives reached beyond Brazil’s borders and targeted speech protected by the First Amendment. Brazil, meanwhile, argues that it is the real party in interest and that Moraes is entitled to immunity because the challenged acts were taken in his judicial role.
That is why the case matters. If a judge in Brasilia can dictate what American companies may host for American users, the First Amendment becomes vulnerable to any foreign government willing to send censorship orders across the water.
The U.S. District Court order laid out the procedural reset in plain terms. It says Trump Media and Rumble sued Moraes, spent months trying formal service under the Hague Service Convention, then won permission to serve him by email after those earlier efforts did not work.
The order says the plaintiffs filed proof of service on June 5, 2026, showing service on May 24. Brazil moved to intervene and dismiss on June 15, and Judge Scriven granted intervention, deferred the dismissal question, lifted the default track, and denied the clerk-default request without prejudice.
None of that ends the case. It gives Trump Media and Rumble 14 days to answer Brazil’s dismissal bid while keeping the censorship fight alive in an American courtroom.
Rumble and Trump Media’s complaint alleges Moraes issued sweeping gag orders that reached U.S.-based accounts and speech visible inside the United States. The complaint describes Truth Social as a platform built for open discourse and American free expression.
The companies argue those orders collide with the First Amendment, Section 230, the Stored Communications Act, and Florida’s policy on foreign judgments. They also say the orders were never domesticated in the United States or served on the plaintiffs through the Hague Convention.
The complaint says Moraes’s sealed orders targeted accounts tied to journalists, lawmakers, commentators, and supporters of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro.
Getting to this point took work. The plaintiffs spent months trying formal service under the Hague Service Convention, then won permission to serve Moraes by email.
They filed proof of service on June 5, 2026, showing service on May 24, 2026. Brazil moved to intervene and dismiss ten days later.
In its public statement on the original suit, Rumble said the case was about stopping a foreign judge from bypassing U.S. law and imposing censorship commands on American companies. The company said the targeted user was a political dissident living in the United States, and that U.S. authorities had already rejected Brazil’s extradition request as involving speech offenses.
Rumble also emphasized that it has no personnel, assets, or operations in Brazil that would justify a foreign court controlling its U.S. platform. The company’s position is straightforward: American businesses should be governed by American law, and foreign courts should not unilaterally dictate what speech is allowed on American platforms.
That is the practical stake for Truth Social users, Rumble users, and every platform built around lawful American political speech.
Congress has flagged the same danger. House Judiciary Republicans said their report documented how Brazil’s censorship regime threatened American free speech, including demands aimed at U.S. platforms and users.
The committee warned that when platforms such as X and Rumble resisted, Moraes used fines, account suspensions, and platform access threats as pressure tools. Its bottom-line warning was blunt: if a Brazilian judge can force American companies to censor U.S. residents, American free speech is in jeopardy.
That warning is no longer theoretical. It is a live case in a Florida courthouse, and Trump Media and Rumble are forcing the issue.
The next move belongs to the plaintiffs, who have 14 days to answer Brazil’s dismissal bid. The bigger fight is whether American courts will draw a hard line against foreign censorship reaching onto U.S. soil.
