American Congress Has No Authority over Supreme Court Justice Moraes' Decisions
WBO Press Release
June 26 2024
The Congressional Research Service of the U.S. Congress itself provides guidelines that prevent harassment of congressional representatives and senators over the sovereignty of other countries.
Does the US have any power to demand explanations from Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes? Bolsonarists and Trumpists want us to believe that it does. But the truth is that the rules of the U.S. Congress themselves prevent this interference. Check it out:
The Congressional Research Service has produced a document entitled “Extraterritorial Congressional Oversight,” which explains the power of the U.S. Congress on issues that affect the sovereignty of other countries.
Anyone can read the document for themselves and understand that U.S. congressional representative and senators have no rights to meddle in matters of the Brazilian judiciary. But we have highlighted excerpts from the document to facilitate access to this information.
This guiding document makes the obvious clear that “sovereignty is one of the main animating principles of the international order” and determines the prevalence of “equal standing of countries as legal entities.” Therefore, “even if [the U.S.] Congress had plenary authority to conduct all diplomacy on behalf of the United States [and it does not], the equality of nations would limit Congress’s oversight power as a matter of law, practicality, and diplomacy."
The document recovers a phrase from John Marshall, who was chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, which says: “No principle of general law is more universally acknowledged than the perfect equality of nations. . . . It results from this equality that no one can rightly impose a rule on another. Each legislates for itself (...) [The U.S.] Congress starts as a baseline of not authority in a foreign jurisdiction.”
Marshall goes on to explain that “[m]oreover, Congress recognized the sovereignty the principle when enacting the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). It immunizes foreign governments from a variety of judicial and administrative processes, including judicial subpoenas. Where [the U.S.] Congress asserts coercive oversight authority over foreign nationals and government institutions, it risks ineffectuality and invites contempt for American arrogance.”
Someone could still ask themselves: but if the U.S. Congress has no interference in internal issues of the Brazilian judiciary, why was there a session dedicated to the topic on May 7th, 2024 in the Foreign Relations Committee of the US House of Representatives?
In fact, Congressional committees can hold hearings on the most varied topics. However, the rule is clear in specifying that “when [the U.S.] Congress seeks information from officials of foreign governments and multilateral organizations, however, it traditionally sheds formalities as a nod to its lack of supervisory authority in the international scene. Hearings become briefings that dispense with the administration of testimonial oaths,” which precisely demonstrates “congressional respect for sovereignty interests. . .” of other countries; and, in this case, Brazil.
There is, therefore, there is no basis for considering that a hearing that took place in the U.S. Congress could give rise to actions that violate Brazil's sovereignty and bypass the national legal system. The document “Extraterritorial Congressional Oversight” of the “Congressional Research Service” the body of the US Congress that guides the action of congressional representatives and senators on the matter states this very clearly.
