Tensions rise as Lula blasts U.S. over visa sanctions tied to Bolsonaro trial
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva called a U.S. decision to impose visa bans on officials involved in former President Jair Bolsonaro's trial "arbitrary" and "baseless," and said foreign interference in the judiciary was "unacceptable."
In a statement on Saturday, the leftist leader said the action violated fundamental principles of respect and sovereignty between nations.
In an escalation of tensions between U.S. President Donald Trump and the government of Latin America's largest economy, Washington imposed visa restrictions on Friday on Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, his family and other unnamed court officials.
The visa bans were a response to the Supreme Court's decision to issue search warrants and restraining orders targeting Trump ally Bolsonaro, who is accused of plotting a coup to overturn the results of a 2022 election he lost.
"I am certain that no form of intimidation or threat, from anyone, will compromise the most important mission of Brazil's powers and institutions, which is to permanently defend and uphold the democratic rule of law," said Lula.
Solicitor general Jorge Messias, the top judicial official for Lula's executive branch, said in a statement posted on X late Friday that Prosecutor General Paulo Gonet was also targeted by the ban.
Messias said no "improper maneuver" or "sordid conspiratorial act" would intimidate the judiciary in carrying out its duties with independence, as he condemned what he also described as arbitrary U.S. visa revocations targeting Brazilian officials for fulfilling their constitutional responsibilities.
In addition to Moraes, seven other justices from Brazil's 11-member Supreme Court were also hit by the U.S. visa restrictions, Government Institutional Relations Minister Gleisi Hoffmann said on Friday.
They include justices Luis Roberto Barroso, Dias Toffoli, Cristiano Zanin, Flavio Dino, Carmen Lucia, Edson Fachin, and Gilmar Mendes.
The Prosecutor General's Office and the Supreme Court did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Trump has criticised the proceedings against Bolsonaro as a "witch hunt", a term he has used to describe his own treatment by political opponents, and has called for the charges to be dropped. In a letter last week, he announced a 50% tariff on Brazilian goods starting August 1, opening the message with criticism of the trial.
Bolsonaro is on trial before Brazil's Supreme Court on charges of plotting a coup to stop Lula from taking office in January 2023.
The right-wing firebrand has denied that he led an attempt to overthrow the government but has acknowledged taking part in meetings aimed at reversing the election's outcome.
© Thomson Reuters 2025.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Today
19 hours ago
- Japan Today
Married couples still excluded under Japan's transgender law
Following the verdict by the Kyoto Family Court, Miki (R, pseudonym) and Chiro (pseudonym) hold up signs protesting the ruling at a press conference in Kyoto on March 26, 2025. The signs read, "Perform your judicial duties properly!!" (L) and "It seems there's no legislative discretion for divorce." (Kyodo) ==Kyodo By Mei Kodama Miki confessed to Chiro that he sometimes liked to "transform" early in their relationship. Miki (a pseudonym) was born male and lived and worked as a man but liked to go out in skirts and other feminine clothes from time to time. Chiro (also a pseudonym) was amused. They were attracted to each other and married a year later. Miki continued living as a man for a while. But after a few years, he decided on a new lifestyle and appearance and adopted a female name. Today, 10 years later, Miki is in her 50s and living as a woman. But since her appearance differs from her birth gender, it can be difficult to prove her identity. Although the couple say that gender is not central to their married life, Miki is concerned about the need to identify herself because she is listed as a man on her family register. "They don't recognize me for who I am," said Miki. "That's the hardest part." Miki wants to legally change her gender, but she cannot do so under Japan's law for people with gender dysphoria while she is married. It states that a diagnosis must be made by at least two doctors, and anyone who wants to legally change their gender must fulfill certain conditions. As it was enacted in 2004, Japan's Act on Special Cases in Handling Gender Status for Persons with Gender Identity Disorder required that people changing their gender be at least 18 years old, unmarried, without minor children, sterile, and have genitalia resembling those of the target gender. In 2023, the Supreme Court struck down the sterilization requirement as unconstitutional. Miki meets all the conditions except for being married. In July 2024, she filed a petition for a domestic relations hearing at the Kyoto Family Court to obtain a legal sex change while married. However, in March this year, Presiding Judge Akiko Nakamura rejected the request. She ruled that the requirement of being unmarried "cannot immediately be interpreted as unconstitutional and invalid." But Nakamura acknowledged that it forces people to choose between divorcing and changing their gender or accepting the disadvantages of having different social and legal genders while being married. According to the judgment, the requirement is in place to avoid same-sex marriage, which is not recognized under current Japanese law. "Although everyone's idea of happiness is different, the court's decision seems out of touch with the times," said Chiro, who is in her 40s. "I really can't understand it." Nakamura's ruling follows precedent from 2020, when the Supreme Court refused to grant a petition for gender reassignment to a married couple. It decided the requirement was constitutional and based on "considerations such as the potential for disrupting the current marriage order, in which marriage is recognized only between heterosexuals." That decision has not been overturned. Japan is the only Group of Seven country that has not legalized same-sex marriage or civil unions. The Kyoto Family Court ruling was a setback after several legal victories by those trying to change the law on gender dysphoria and the legality of same-sex marriage. Since the 2023 Supreme Court decision, family courts have permitted gender reassignment even when a person has not undergone surgical sterilization. According to the top court, there were at least 54 such cases in 2024. As for the requirement about the appearance of genital organs, the Hiroshima High Court ruled in July 2024 that there is "suspicion of unconstitutionality." Lawsuits demanding the legalization of same-sex marriage have been filed by people in Sapporo, Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, and Fukuoka. In March 2021, the Sapporo District Court ruled that the current law not recognizing same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Following the Sapporo ruling, the district court decisions on the constitutionality of the law were divided, but by March of this year, all five high courts had ruled it unconstitutional. Yasuhiko Watanabe, a professor of family law at Meiji University's School of Law, pointed out that Germany abolished its unmarried requirement for gender change in 2008 and passed same-sex marriage legislation in 2017. "Japan should move forward with eliminating the requirements of the special law," said Watanabe. "However, we must expand the counseling system in schools, workplaces, and specialized institutions and establish a framework to support those involved." On April 1, Miki filed an appeal with the Osaka High Court against the Kyoto Family Court's decision. Chiro, who is attracted to men and has not changed her sexual orientation from heterosexual to homosexual, says she will cherish her life with Miki, even if Miki's gender transition is eventually recognized by law. Miki and Chiro said the concepts of family and happiness are different for each person, and they will continue to fight what they regard as an unjust law. "As long as Miki remains someone that I care about, I want to continue to share my time with her," Chiro said. © KYODO
Japan Times
2 days ago
- Japan Times
Philippine court says Sara Duterte impeachment unlawful
The Philippines' Supreme Court on Friday said the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte is unconstitutional, in a stunning victory for the embattled politician and rival of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. The top court said the complaint didn't comply with the constitutional rule that only one impeachment proceeding may be initiated against the same official within one year. Duterte was awaiting a trial in the country's Senate that could lead to barring her from public office if convicted. Her legal team welcomed the decision, saying it has "once again upheld the rule of law and reinforced the constitutional limits against abuse of the impeachment process.' The court said in a statement that the Senate "could not acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings,' which suggests that the trial can't go ahead when Congress opens next week. In a separate statement, a spokesperson for the Senate said the chamber is "duty-bound to respect the finality of rulings issued by the High Court.' The vice president was impeached in February by the House of Representatives on accusations that include plotting to assassinate Marcos and misusing public funds. She denies allegations of wrongdoing. "The articles of impeachment, which was the fourth complaint, violated the one-year period ban because there were three complaints that were ahead of it,' court spokesperson Camille Sue Mae Ting told reporters. The court added in a statement that a new impeachment complaint can be filed starting Feb. 6 next year and "is not absolving Vice President Duterte from any of the charges against her.' The court statement said the decision was unanimous. Judges appointed by former President Rodrigo Duterte, the vice president's father, dominate the high court. It's unlikely that another impeachment complaint will be filed again, said Bob Herrera-Lim, managing director of risk consultancy Teneo. "The narrative that emerged from the midterms is that the Duterte family still has significant political support, and that voters may have tired of the battle between the Marcos and Duterte families as being the focus of politics,' he said. Marcos is set to deliver an annual State of the Nation Address on Monday before lawmakers during the opening of the 20th Congress. "We call on everyone to respect the Supreme Court and place their trust in our institutions,' Presidential Communications Office Undersecretary Claire Castro said.
Japan Times
3 days ago
- Japan Times
Amid Epstein furor, Ghislaine Maxwell seeks relief from U.S. Supreme Court
Even as an uproar over files relating to Jeffrey Epstein engulfs President Donald Trump and Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court is due to wade into the controversy and decide whether to hear a bid by an associate of the late financier and convicted sex offender to overturn her criminal conviction. The justices, now on their summer recess, are expected in late September to consider whether to take up an appeal by British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year prison sentence after being found guilty in 2021 by a jury in New York of helping Epstein sexually abuse teenage girls. Maxwell's lawyers have told the Supreme Court that her conviction was invalid because a non-prosecution and plea agreement that federal prosecutors had made with Epstein in Florida in 2007 also shielded his associates and should have barred her criminal prosecution in New York. Her lawyers have a Monday deadline for filing their final written brief in their appeal to the court. Some legal experts see merit in Maxwell's claim, noting that it touches on an unsettled matter of U.S. law that has divided some of the nation's regional federal appeals courts, known as circuit courts. Mitchell Epner, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice, said there is a chance that the Supreme Court takes up the case, and noted the disagreement among appeals courts. Such a split among circuit courts can be a factor when the nation's top judicial body considers whether or not to hear a case. "The question of whether a plea agreement from one U.S. Attorney's Office binds other federal prosecution as a whole is a serious issue that has split the circuits," Epner said. While uncommon, "there have been several cases presenting the issue over the years," Epner added. Trump's Justice Department appeared to acknowledge the circuit split in a brief filed to the justices this month, but urged them to reject the appeal. Any disparity among lower court rulings "is of limited importance," Solicitor-General D. John Sauer wrote in the brief, "because the scope of a plea or similar agreement is under the control of the parties to the agreement." If the Supreme Court opts to grant Maxwell's appeal, it would hear arguments during its new term that begins in October, with a ruling then expected by the end of next June. Trump and his administration have been facing mounting pressure from his supporters to release additional information about the Justice Department's investigation into Epstein, who hanged himself in 2019 in a Manhattan jail cell, an autopsy concluded, while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges. Deputy U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, a former personal lawyer to Trump, met with Maxwell in Florida on Thursday in what her lawyer called "a very productive day." The administration reversed course this month on its pledge to release more documents about Epstein, prompting fury among some of Trump's most loyal followers. The Epstein case has long been the subject of conspiracy theories, considering his rich and powerful friends and the circumstances of his death. The Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump during his first term in office. Whether the court would want to take on such a case that represents a political landmine is an open question. The justices hear relatively few cases — about 70 out of more than 4,000 appeals filed at the court each year — and have broad discretion to choose which ones will be on their docket. At least four of the justices must agree in order for the court to take up a case. Maxwell's appeal focuses on a deal Epstein struck in 2007 to avoid federal prosecution in part by pleading guilty to state criminal offenses in Florida of soliciting prostitution and soliciting minors to engage in prostitution. Epstein then served 13 months in a minimum-security state facility. In 2019, during Trump's first term as president, the U.S. Justice Department charged Epstein in Manhattan with sex trafficking of minors. Epstein pleaded not guilty, but died by suicide before the trial at age 66. Maxwell was arrested in 2020 and convicted the following year after being accused by federal prosecutors of recruiting and grooming girls to have sexual encounters with Epstein between 1994 and 2004. Maxwell failed to convince a trial judge and the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to throw out her conviction based on the 2007 non-prosecution agreement, which stated that "the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." In the appeal to the Supreme Court, Maxwell's lawyer David Markus said that in its reference to co-conspirators, the Epstein agreement had no geographic limit on where the non-prosecution agreement could be enforced. "If the government can promise one thing and deliver another — and courts let it happen — that erodes the integrity of the justice system," Markus said. "This isn't just about Ghislaine Maxwell. It's about whether the government is held to its word," Markus said. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has urged the Supreme Court to hear Maxwell's appeal given the prevalence of plea agreements in the U.S. criminal justice system and to ensure that the government keeps its promises. The group represents thousands of private lawyers, public defenders, law professors and judges nationwide. It said in a filing to the justices that the lack of a geographic limitation means "no part of the Department of Justice may institute criminal charges against any co-conspirator in any district." Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman, an expert in criminal law, said it was unusual for the U.S. attorney in Florida to include protection for co-conspirators in the agreement to not prosecute Epstein. That peculiarity might be reason enough for the Supreme Court to avoid the matter, Richman said, as it renders the case a poor vehicle for resolving whether pleas in one court district bind actions in all other court districts. "There were many strange things about this deal," Richman said, which will cut against the Supreme Court's interest in taking up Maxwell's appeal. Richman said he hoped the political fallout would not play into the Supreme Court's decision on whether to hear Maxwell's appeal. If it does, Richman said, taking up the case could allow Maxwell to avoid cooperating with the government and dodge responsibility. "A decision that would allow Maxwell to protect herself probably would not be something they would be interested in," Richman said of the Supreme Court justices.
