Will a Bolsonaro Presidency Change Brazil’s Defense of Moraes in U.S. Court?
By Hotspotnews
Martin De Luca’s October 5, 2026, post raises a pointed question about continuity in Brazilian foreign policy and judicial diplomacy: if Senator Flávio Bolsonaro wins the presidency, would the government still instruct U.S. courts that Justice Alexandre de Moraes acted lawfully when he ordered American platforms with no Brazilian presence to restrict content and accounts of users on U.S. soil?
The post arrives the day after Brazil’s first-round presidential vote. With nearly all ballots counted, Flávio Bolsonaro led incumbent President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva by roughly 47 percent to 45 percent, sending the race to an October 25 runoff. Bolsonaro, the eldest son of former president Jair Bolsonaro (currently serving a lengthy sentence related to the events after the 2022 election), exceeded many pre-election forecasts. The outcome does not decide the presidency, but it places the question of a potential change in government in immediate view.
At the center of De Luca’s question is a lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. In early 2025, Rumble Inc. and Trump Media & Technology Group Corp. sued Moraes, seeking a declaration that certain orders he issued are unenforceable in the United States. The companies argue the directives—described in court filings as sweeping account suspensions and content-removal requirements aimed at users and platforms based in the United States—conflict with the First Amendment, the Communications Decency Act, and Florida public policy. They further contend the orders reach entities and individuals with no physical presence or formal establishment in Brazil.
In June 2026, the court allowed the Federative Republic of Brazil to intervene. Brazil’s Advocacia-Geral da União moved to dismiss, asserting that Moraes’s actions constitute sovereign judicial acts immune from review by foreign courts under principles of international law and the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The court granted intervention, stayed consideration of default, and deferred a ruling on the motion to dismiss pending further briefing. As of early October 2026, the case remains active, with Brazil positioned as an intervenor defending the view that its highest court’s orders cannot be second-guessed by an American judge.
A change in Brazil’s executive branch would not automatically rewrite judicial doctrine or bind the Supreme Federal Court. Moraes sits on that court, and Brazilian presidents lack direct authority to reverse individual judicial decisions. However, the executive controls the Advocacia-Geral da União and sets the government’s litigation posture in foreign courts. A new administration could, in principle, withdraw or narrow the intervention, decline to argue that the specific orders were lawful exercises of jurisdiction over U.S. persons and platforms, or shift emphasis toward diplomatic channels rather than court defense of extraterritorial effect. Whether any such shift would occur depends on the incoming government’s priorities, its reading of Brazilian law on jurisdiction, and the practical constraints of ongoing litigation.
The underlying tension is not unique to Brazil. Courts and regulators in multiple countries have asserted authority over content accessible within their borders even when the platforms and users are located elsewhere. Platforms headquartered in the United States have repeatedly argued that compliance with such orders can force them to restrict speech that remains lawful under U.S. rules. The Florida case tests one concrete version of that conflict: whether a foreign judicial order that directs a U.S. company, served outside ordinary treaty mechanisms, to act against U.S. users is entitled to recognition or deference when the company seeks a declaration of unenforceability.
De Luca’s question therefore concerns more than partisan succession. It highlights the difference between a government’s defense of institutional prerogatives and its willingness to maintain a specific legal position once political control of the executive changes. The runoff will determine which administration next instructs counsel in the Florida proceeding. The court’s eventual ruling on immunity and enforceability will determine how much practical difference that instruction can make.
#BrazilElection #FlavioBolsonaro #Rumble #FreeSpeech #AlexandreDeMoraes #USCourts
Sources: U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida docket records in Rumble Inc. and Trump Media & Technology Group Corp. v. De Moraes (Case No. 8:25-cv-00411); statements and filings by Brazil’s Advocacia-Geral da União; official first-round vote tallies reported by Brazil’s electoral authorities and contemporaneous coverage by BBC, Al Jazeera, and The Washington Post (October 4–5, 2026).
