Alexandre de Moraes: The Judge Who Became King and Silenced Brazil’s Opposition

There is an old maxim that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In the case of Alexandre de Moraes, Justice of Brazil’s Supreme Federal Tribunal (STF), this axiom has never been more fitting. What began as a judicial appointment under questionable circumstances has metastasized into a consolidation of unchecked authority, turning Moraes into something more than a judge—a de facto ruler, unaccountable to any electorate, unchecked by any meaningful oversight, and unrestrained by the principles that define democratic governance. His ability to dictate political discourse, censor opposition voices, and punish dissent has led many to argue that he is no longer a justice interpreting the law, but a king issuing decrees. The lawsuit filed against him by Rumble and Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG) presents a damning portrait of a jurist who has moved beyond his constitutional mandate to become the most powerful and unaccountable figure in Brazil.

Moraes’s rise to power began with a suspicious appointment. In 2017, Brazil was in the midst of the explosive Operation Car Wash (Lava Jato) corruption investigation, which implicated some of the nation’s most powerful political and business figures. Justice Teori Zavascki, who had been overseeing the case, died suddenly in a plane crash, a death that many found too convenient given the political stakes. With Zavascki gone, then-President Michel Temer—himself a subject of corruption investigations—quickly appointed Moraes, his former justice minister, to the STF, ensuring that someone loyal to the political establishment, rather than an impartial jurist, would have a decisive role in shaping the Court’s direction.

Moraes had never served as a judge before being elevated to the STF. His appointment was political, not judicial. His ties to the Temer administration and the broader Brazilian political elite raised immediate concerns that he was being installed not to uphold the rule of law, but to protect those in power. The Rumble lawsuit contends that Moraes was chosen for precisely this reason: to act as a guardian for the establishment, ensuring that the STF could serve as a shield against future corruption investigations rather than an impartial enforcer of justice.

Once on the Court, Moraes wasted no time in asserting his authority in ways that went far beyond traditional judicial oversight. He spearheaded Inquiry No. 4781, known as the “Fake News Inquiry”, under the guise of combating misinformation. But in reality, the inquiry functioned as a mechanism to silence critics, target political opponents, and consolidate judicial control over public discourse. One of its first acts was the censorship of a news article exposing the alleged corruption of Justice José Antonio Dias Toffoli, a close ally of Moraes. Under threat of massive fines, Moraes forced the removal of the article, demonstrating that he was willing to leverage his judicial power not to defend democracy, but to protect his own allies from scrutiny.

This pattern of judicial authoritarianism has only escalated. The lawsuit against Moraes outlines how he has personally overseen the censorship and criminalization of opposition figures, particularly those aligned with former President Jair Bolsonaro. Using sealed orders—secretive judicial commands that evade public scrutiny—Moraes has targeted at least 150 individuals, including politicians, journalists, and social media commentators, accusing them of spreading disinformation or engaging in anti-democratic speech. The irony, of course, is that in his supposed effort to protect democracy, he has stripped it of one of its foundational pillars: free speech.

But Moraes’s overreach is not confined to Brazil’s borders. The Rumble lawsuit details his extraterritorial censorship campaign, in which he has issued orders compelling U.S.-based companies to silence voices critical of Brazil’s government. His demands have required platforms like Rumble and Truth Social to remove accounts that are fully compliant with U.S. law and First Amendment protections. Moraes has also attempted to force these companies to designate legal representatives in Brazil, a move that would place them under his jurisdiction and allow him to impose fines or other punitive measures for noncompliance.

The lawsuit also highlights his extraordinary confrontation with Elon Musk and X (formerly Twitter). Musk has publicly denounced Moraes’s attempts to force Twitter to remove Brazilian political content, calling it a blatant violation of free speech. In response, Moraes threatened Musk’s companies, including Starlink, with heavy penalties, demonstrating his willingness to punish those who resist his autocratic demands. In doing so, Moraes has revealed the full scope of his unchecked authority: his power extends not only over Brazil but into the digital domain, beyond his country’s borders, and even into the American legal system.

Perhaps the most egregious example of Moraes’s attempts to crush dissent is his targeting of a U.S.-based political dissident—referred to in the lawsuit as “Political Dissident A.” This conservative Brazilian commentator fled to the United States after Moraes issued an arrest warrant for the crime of “anti-democratic speech.” When Brazil requested his extradition, the U.S. flatly rejected it, citing the fact that the dissident’s speech was protected under American law. But Moraes was undeterred: rather than respecting international norms, he sought to strangle the dissident’s ability to communicate by coercing U.S. social media platforms into deplatforming him.

This is not the behavior of a judge. This is the behavior of a tyrant who views the judiciary as his personal instrument of power. Moraes wields greater authority than any elected official in Brazil—more than the President, more than the Congress. He does not answer to voters. He does not respect due process. He issues secretive orders that evade oversight. He punishes those who challenge his rule, even beyond his own nation’s borders.

The lawsuit filed by Rumble and TMTG is not just a case about a rogue judge overstepping his bounds; it is a warning. If foreign courts can dictate the speech of U.S. companies, overriding constitutional protections, then judicial tyranny is no longer a domestic concern—it becomes a global crisis. If Moraes is permitted to silence voices at will, detain critics without due process, and coerce private companies into enforcing his decrees, then Brazil ceases to function as a democracy in any meaningful sense.

A judge is meant to interpret and uphold the law, not rewrite it in secrecy. But Alexandre de Moraes has positioned himself above the law, accountable to no one but himself. He has crowned himself king, and as long as he reigns, democracy in Brazil exists in name only.

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏 and subscribe to the Deep Dive podcast.