President Donald Trump’s media group and Rumble Inc. filed an emergency motion in a U.S. federal court on Feb. 22 seeking a temporary restraining order against Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes after he ordered a nationwide suspension of Rumble’s video-sharing service in Brazil.
TMTG operates the social media platform Truth Social, and Rumble Inc. owns the video-sharing platform Rumble. The justice alleged that Rumble Inc. had failed to comply with court orders to name a legal representative in Brazil and to remove the Rumble account of Allan dos Santos.
Santos, a supporter of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, is considered a fugitive in Brazil and is under investigation over alleged hate speech and spreading false information.
Access to Rumble was blocked in Brazil following the judge’s order. The company said the Truth Social platform, which uses Rumble’s video streaming infrastructure, has also been affected by the ban.
On Feb. 22, TMTG and Rumble Inc. filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida for an “ex-parte temporary restraining order” and preliminary injunction to block the justice’s orders. An ex-parte order would allow legal action to be taken without requiring the defendant’s presence in court.
De Moraes issued another order on Feb. 22 requiring local telecommunications companies to shut down Rumble and imposing a daily fine of $8,700 on the U.S.-based company after it refused to comply, the company said.
The motion also alleges that De Moraes was “personally threatening” Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski with criminal prosecution after the latter publicly questioned the legality of the justice’s censorship orders and voiced his refusal to comply.
The companies argued that De Moraes’s demands for Rumble to remove content protected under U.S. law, turn over private data of its U.S. users, and block financial transactions within the United States amount to a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
They stated that the justice required Rumble to designate a legal representative in Brazil “solely for the purpose of accepting service of Justice Moraes’s censorship mandates (and the corresponding penalties), and to otherwise fall under the authority of Justice Moraes.”
“Absent immediate judicial intervention and injunctive relief, plaintiffs will suffer further irreparable harm, including the loss of First Amendment freedoms, additional operational challenges, and a permanent erosion of user trust,” the motion stated.
The companies argued that “if this type of end-run around U.S. law is allowed to stand, it will embolden other foreign officials to impose their censorship regimes on American companies without due process, suppress political discourse, and interfere with U.S. business operations without legal justification.”
The Epoch Times reached out to Brazil’s supreme court for comment but did not hear back by publication time.
Last year, the justice banned social media platform X, owned by Elon Musk, in Brazil for refusing to remove certain accounts accused of spreading misinformation and for failing to appoint a legal representative in the country. The ban was later lifted after the company complied with the orders and paid the outstanding fines.
