Supreme Court at odds over Justice Dino’s ruling on foreign law

The disagreement, with some exceptions, is less about content and more about form: for part of the Supreme Court members, it would be better for the debate to occur in Mr. Zanin’s case because it addresses the Magnitsky Act. The process conducted by Mr. Dino, meanwhile, discusses lawsuits filed in UK courts by Brazilian municipalities affected by environmental disasters.

In the case with Mr. Zanin, Federal Deputy Lindbergh Farias, Workers’ Party (PT) leader in the Chamber, seeks to prevent banks operating in Brazil from blocking the accounts of Alexandre de Moraes, sanctioned by the U.S. under the Magnitsky Act in July. On August 1, Mr. Zanin sent the request to the Attorney General’s Office (PGR). He awaits the body’s opinion.

Some magistrates say Mr. Dino’s decision is too broad and may cause confusion about its effects. They also say it is necessary to better hear the actors affected by the order and know how Brazilian banks may be impacted by the decision.

Others defended Mr. Dino. For them, STF decisions can exceed the scope of a concrete case. They also affirm that their colleague defended the Supreme Court from external interference.

The Magnitsky Act can affect any company that operates in the United States or conducts transactions with the American currency. Earlier this month, justices met with bank representatives to discuss the effects of the sanction. Justices Moraes, Zanin and Gilmar Mendes participated.

Brazilian banks fear U.S. sanctions

On that occasion, financial institutions did not demonstrate intention to impede operations in Brazil on their own, but expressed concerns about how to act in case of U.S. sanction threats.

On Monday (18), Mr. Dino ruled that foreign laws and judicial orders do not automatically apply in Brazil, nor do they bind Brazilian companies or affect assets located in the country.

The decision was made in a case discussing lawsuits filed in UK courts by Brazilian municipalities that were affected by the Mariana and Brumadinho mining disasters in Minas Gerais.

Mr. Dino’s decision has binding effect. According to the justice, it applies to “the controversy depicted in these proceedings and in all others where foreign jurisdiction – or another foreign state body – intends to impose, on national territory, unilateral acts over the authority of Brazil’s sovereignty bodies.”