US Sanctions Wife of Brazilian Supreme Court Justice, Sparking Sovereignty Concerns

By Staff, Agencies

In an unprecedented move, the US Treasury Department on Monday sanctioned Viviane Barci de Moraes, wife of Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who presided over the 2023 conviction of former President Jair Bolsonaro for attempting a military coup.

The sanctions, which freeze US-based assets tied to the Moraes family and their Lex Institute foundation, extend US measures directly to the family of a sitting Supreme Court justice—an escalation that has alarmed Brazilian officials and analysts as interference in domestic judicial affairs.

The announcement follows Bolsonaro’s 27-year prison sentence for efforts to cling to power after losing the 2022 election. Justice Moraes had stated that Bolsonaro and his allies attempted “to remain in power by simply ignoring democracy.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent accused Moraes of leading “an oppressive campaign of censorship, arbitrary detentions, and politicized prosecutions, including against former President Jair Bolsonaro.”

Critics argue the move mirrors rhetoric from US politicians, including Donald Trump, a Bolsonaro ally who has pressured Brazil’s courts to drop the charges.

Many Brazilians view Washington’s action as a direct affront to sovereignty. “This is an extraordinary intrusion into Brazil’s democratic process, sanctioning the wife of a Supreme Court justice simply because the US president doesn’t like a ruling,” said one Brasília analyst.

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva similarly stressed that Trump’s opposition reflects a personal alignment with Bolsonaro, not the Brazilian state.

The sanctions coincide with ongoing tensions over social media influence, as De Moraes has launched federal inquiries into billionaire Elon Musk’s role in campaigns allegedly aimed at destabilizing Brazil’s democracy.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands have taken to the streets and beaches demanding Bolsonaro receive no amnesty.

Analysts warn that using the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act—typically reserved for war criminals or sanctioned officials—against a judge’s family sets a dangerous diplomatic precedent.