US Department of Justice says that Brazilian court orders are not executable within the United States
The US Department of Justice (DJ) (Supreme Court) Alexandre de Moraes for determining Rumble to block the profile of a user – the journalist Allan dos Santos, who is currently in the US.
A had access to (PDF, in English – 541 KB) of the letter. Here is the translation of the document in Portuguese ( – PDF – 62 KB). If you prefer, read the translated letter below.
In the text, the US agency said it will not position itself on “the feasibility”Of judicial orders about the platform’s performance in Brazil, but that the directives are not“executable”In the US.
The letter was addressed to the Ministry of Justice and has as its final recipient the “Excellent Minister Alexandre de Moraes”.
Read in the document: “We do not position ourselves about the feasibility of the various orders and other judicial documents that order Rumble to act in the Brazilian territory, which is a matter of Brazilian law. However, as these documents order Rumble to undertake specific actions in the United States, we respectfully inform you that such directives are not executable court orders in the United States”.
The US Department of Justice stated that Brazil must follow the necessary procedures for an order to be executed in the US.
“To enforce a foreign civil sentence or another foreign court order in civil matters in the United States, a person seeking execution generally needs to initiate a lawsuit in the United States to recognize and enforce foreign order before a competent US court”Says the letter.
According to the document, US legislation “provides for various grounds for non -recognition”Of a certain measure requested by another nation,“as the absence of due process or the incompatibility with rules of freedom of expression”.
The US agency expressed “concern about the form of citation”From judicial documents to Rumble.“At this time, we need sufficient information about the content or nature of the mentioned process, including whether it is civil or criminal matters ”.
RUMBLE
Rumble in Brazil by determination of Moraes since February this year.
He ordered the platform’s suspension in Brazil after the company did not comply with the following court decisions:
- the removal of the profiles of journalist Allan dos Santos on the social network;
- Blocking the financial transfers received by him through advertising, registration of supporters and donations on the platform;
- and the indication and proof of a legal representative of the company in Brazil.
The social network had returned to work in Brazil on February 8. At the time, he had been summoned by the minister to block the journalist’s accounts. The lawyers representing the platform answered that they had no legal powers to be summoned on behalf of Rumble Brazil and resigned.
In the decision, Moraes quoted that the legal representative is a requirement for a company based abroad to operate in Brazil (understand more). In response, the company with an action in the US court to prevent the effects of Moraes’s decision and accused the minister of censorship.
Read the full letter in Portuguese:
“United States Department of Justice
“Civil Division
“International Judicial Assistance Office
“May 7, 2025
“By FedEx
“To the Honorable Minister Alexandre de Moraes
Supremo Tribunal Federal
Três Powers Square, Annex II-A
5th floor, room S21
70175-900 Brasília-DF
Brazil
“Subject: Case No. 9,935 of the Federal Justice
“Dear Minister Alexandre de Moraes,
“The United States Department of Justice refers to the above-mentioned process and presents its compliments to the Federal Supreme Court of Brazil (“ Court ”). Within the Department of Justice, the International Judicial Assistance Office (“ Oija ”) acts as a central authority in accordance with the Hague Convention on the citation and notification of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (“ Hague Hague Convention ”) Civil or Commercial (“Hague Convention on Evidence”), and the Office of International Affairs (“Oia”) acts as a Central Authority of the United States under the Mutual Criminal Aid Treaties (“MLATS”), including the Treaty between the United States of America and the Government of the Federative Republic of Mutual Legal Assistance (“Mlat Brazil-Eu”) provisions on mutual legal aid from which Brazil and the United States are signatory.
“We were informed by Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, an external lawyer at Rumble Inc. (“ Rumble ”) in the US, which his client received 4 legal documents related to the above process, characterized as follows: (1) An order of February 9, 2025; (2) An order of February 10, 2025; February 2025. These judicial documents, according to the translations provided by Rumble’s lawyer, intend to instruct Rumble, a company organized under the laws of Delaware, a state of the US, and its main business site in the United States, to block accounts associated with an individual on the Rumble social media platform, to suspend the transfer of payments to this individual and to provide the Brazilian reports of payment previously. Performed to this individual.
“We do not position ourselves about the enforceability of the various orders and other judicial documents that order Rumble to act in the Brazilian territory, which is a matter of Brazilian law. However, as these documents order Rumble to undertake specific actions in the United States, we respectfully inform you that such directives are not executable court orders in the United States. Perform orders in the territory of another State without its consent. ”Reformulation (4th) United States Foreign Relations Law § 432 (AM. Law Inst. 2018). See also ID. Note 1 of the Rapporteur (“ The Jurisdiction of Execution Includes… the performance of coercive governmental functions. Examples include… compulsory process, conducting police or administrative investigations, taking deposits and declarations of Witnesses, (E) Perform an order for document production… ”); Cf. Fed. Trade Comm’n V. Compagnie de Saint-Gobain-Pont-à-Son, 636 F.2D 1300, 1313 (DC Cir. 1980) (“ When the compulsory process is summoned, however, the very act of subpoena constitutes an exercise in the sovereign sovereignty within the territory of another sovereign. Such exercise is a violation of international law. ”).
“To enforce a foreign civil sentence or another foreign court order in civil matters in the United States, the person seeking execution generally needs to initiate a judicial proceeding in the United States to recognize and enforce foreign order before a competent US court. Include the insufficiency of due process or incompatibility with US law that protects freedom of expression. Brazilian court orders are not feasible in the United States without successful recognition and execution procedures in the United States.
“In addition, we would also like to express concerns about the way of delivery of any documents in the Rumble. We do not have enough information at this time to determine the object or nature of the above process, including whether it is a civil or criminal issue. However, as the Brazilian Court seeks to instruct Rumble to take action in Brazil, the delivery of judicial documents in the United States should occur by an appropriate, consistent law. Consumed and any applicable agreements between Brazil and the United States. These channels differ depending on whether the case is civil or criminal. We observe that following the appropriate procedures for delivery of judicial documents does not determine if such documents have an effect in the country of origin, which is a matter of foreign domicile.
“Again, we do not position ourselves about the effectiveness of court orders in Brazil as a matter of Brazilian law.
“For judicial documents related to civil and commercial issues, the citation must be made in accordance with the Hague Convention on Quote, of which Brazil and the United States are parts. People in the United States may be cited according to the Hague Convention on the main transmission channel (Article 5) or by any of the alternative or derogatory channels (for example, Articles 8, 10 or 25).
“Requests for evidence or information from third parties regarding civil or commercial issues should not be referred through the Hague Convention on citation, but may be forwarded as a rogatory letter to Oija, according to the Hague Convention on evidence. According to article 12 (b), the Oija will not use compulsory measures to perform a rogatory letter that intends to penalize a non -US witness to penalize a part of the United States. Failure to comply with a foreign test request.
“The United States may provide a wide range of assistance in criminal cases when the sought after information or evidence is located in the United States. As a US central authority responsible for the implementation of MLATs, Oia helps foreign prosecutors, judges and police authorities to obtain information and proofs located in the United States for use in criminal investigations, judgments and procedures in foreign country. or other notifications to people located in the United States. Central or legally designated authorities (central authority) under mlats or international agreements may make requests to the United States on behalf of their investigative and judicial authorities. All requests made in accordance with MLATs must be submitted through the central authority designated to make requests from the sake of the sake of the sake You can perform a request for assistance in accordance with the terms of a MLAT if the request for assistance is not submitted through the Central Authority of the requesting country.
“We will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
“Yours sincerely,
There is E. Bosque
Interim director
US Justice Department ”
