Two amicus briefs filed on Friday (April 3) within the United States Courtroom of Appeals for the Second Circuit have backed UMG Recordings in its protection towards Drake’s defamation attraction over Kendrick Lamar’s Not Like Us.
Each briefs assist the dismissal of Drake’s lawsuit and urge the appeals courtroom to affirm the October 2025 ruling by Choose Jeannette Vargas, who discovered that the diss observe “constitutes protected opinion relatively than actionable defamation.”
The filings, obtained by MBW, may be learn in full right here (1) and right here (2).
The primary temporary was submitted by the Floyd Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression at Yale Regulation College and Professor Lyrissa Lidsky, described within the submitting as one of many nation’s main defamation students.
Lidsky holds the Raymond & Miriam Ehrlich Chair in U.S. Constitutional Regulation on the College of Florida’s Levin Faculty of Regulation and is a co-reporter for the in-progress Restatement (Third) of Torts: Defamation and Privateness.
The temporary was ready by the Media Freedom & Info Entry Clinic at Yale Regulation College, with John Langford serving as counsel of report alongside David A. Schulz.
The second temporary was filed on behalf of a bunch of social scientists and authorized students from establishments throughout the nation, represented by Jack I. Lerner of the UCI Mental Property, Arts, and Know-how Clinic on the College of California, Irvine College of Regulation. The amici embrace students from Howard College, the College of Richmond, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Tulane College, and different establishments.
‘Consent is a whole protection’
The Floyd Abrams Institute temporary advances an argument that wasn’t beforehand central within the case: that Drake consented to the allegedly defamatory statements, barring his lawsuit beneath established defamation regulation.
“Suppose a confident boxer challenges the world champion to a prize battle, is knocked out on reside tv, and, with bruised ego and physique, information a lawsuit for battery.”
Floyd Abrams Institute amicus temporary
The temporary opens with an analogy: “Suppose a confident boxer challenges the world champion to a prize battle, is knocked out on reside tv, and, with bruised ego and physique, information a lawsuit for battery. That lawsuit would fail on the outset for a easy however vital purpose: the challenger consented to the battle, and consent is a basic protection to an intentional tort.”
“Defamation can be an intentional tort, and defamation claims are likewise foreclosed by consent,” the temporary states.
Underneath New York regulation, the temporary argues, consent to defamation is an “absolute protection,” whether or not it’s expressly given or implied by the circumstances.
The temporary’s central declare is that Drake particularly invited the statements he now challenges in courtroom. It factors to Drake’s Taylor Made Freestyle, launched on April 19, 2024, wherein he urged Lamar to proceed the rap battle and — the temporary alleges — “particularly inspired Lamar to ‘speak about him[—i.e., Drake—]likin’ younger women.’”
Lamar responded days later with Not Like Us, launched on Might 4, 2024, containing the lyrics Drake now alleges are defamatory. In keeping with the temporary, Drake then confirmed in The Coronary heart Half 6, launched on Might 5, 2024, that “This Epstein angle was the shit I anticipated.”
“It’s tough to think about a clearer call-and-response,” the temporary states.
The temporary additionally addresses Drake’s framing of the lawsuit as being about UMG’s promotional conduct relatively than Lamar’s lyrics. Drake’s criticism makes no point out of Taylor Made Freestyle and contends that the go well with “will not be in regards to the artist who created ‘Not Like Us.’ It’s, as a substitute, totally about UMG, the music firm that determined to publish, promote, exploit, and monetize allegations that it understood weren’t solely false, however harmful.”
The amici reject that argument: “By urging Lamar to reply in a diss observe and particularly inviting Lamar to place allegedly defamatory lyrics in that diss observe, Drake can not now escape the applicability of a consent protection by suing the report firm that revealed that observe and difficult a scale-of-dissemination he had each purpose to anticipate.”
The temporary additionally argues that dismissal on the pleading stage is acceptable, citing New York courts’ recognition that resolving defamation claims early “has explicit worth, the place applicable, in libel circumstances, in order to not protract litigation by means of discovery and trial and thereby chill the train of constitutionally protected freedoms.”
‘Diss observe lyrics are removed from factual representations’
The second amicus temporary, filed by the group of social scientists and authorized students, takes a unique however complementary strategy, arguing that rap lyrics — and diss observe lyrics particularly — shouldn’t be handled as factual statements.
“Drake’s defamation declare rests on the idea that each phrase of ‘Not Like Us’ ought to be taken actually, as a factual illustration,” the temporary states. “This assumption isn’t just defective — it’s harmful.”
The students’ temporary supplies an account of the historical past and conventions of rap music, describing diss tracks as “an emblematic and long-standing function of the historical past and cultural context of rap” which can be “understood by audiences to not characterize factual assertions in regards to the opposing artist, however relatively to show ability and dominance meant to construct allegiance and win competitions by means of intelligent wordplay, hyperbole, bluster, and demonstrations of disrespect.”
The temporary additionally argues that treating rap lyrics as literal statements threatens First Modification rights and dangers introducing racial bias in judicial proceedings, citing three a long time of empirical analysis. In keeping with the submitting, research have proven that violent lyrics labeled as rap music are, on common, “interpreted as extra literal and extra threatening than equivalent lyrics represented as a unique style.”
The students word that Drake himself beforehand endorsed a “Defend Black Artwork” marketing campaign criticizing the usage of rap lyrics as literal proof in courtroom. “Although Drake has beforehand acknowledged this hazard publicly, he now paradoxically and problematically embraces it,” the temporary states.
The amici urge the Second Circuit to ascertain “a presumption that inventive expression will not be a factual admission,” citing a 2021 ruling within the Jap District of Pennsylvania which held that “courts ought to begin with a presumption that artwork is artwork, not an announcement of truth.”
Drake filed his defamation lawsuit towards UMG in January 2025. The case was dismissed by Choose Vargas in October 2025. Drake appealed the ruling in January 2026, and UMG filed its response temporary late final month.
Each Drake and Kendrick Lamar launch their data through UMG and its Republic Information and Interscope labels, respectively.
