Drake’s December 4 appeal hearing puts his dismissed Not Like Us lawsuit before a three-judge Second Circuit panel for oral argument.
The hearing is the next major step in Graham v. UMG Recordings, Inc., but it is not a new trial and nobody is showing up to call witnesses. Lawyers are entering a case already heavily briefed, with Drake asking the court to revive claims Judge Jeannette Vargas dismissed in October 2025 and UMG asking the panel to leave the judgment alone.
Anyone expecting surprise witnesses or new evidence is looking at the wrong proceeding. The Second Circuit is reviewing what happened in the district court and whether the dismissal should stand under the applicable legal standards. Counsel can point the judges back to the record and controlling law, but oral argument does not reopen fact gathering.
Questions can reveal which issues are attracting judicial attention without revealing the eventual result. A 2026 academic paper on how judges use oral argument discusses functions including gathering information from lawyers and persuading colleagues. The paper studies the Supreme Court rather than the Second Circuit, so its findings are useful context, not evidence about how this particular panel will rule.
Procedure matters too. Drake says the district court relied on material outside the complaint, made factual judgments, and drew conclusions against him at the dismissal stage. UMG disputes that framing and wants the judgment affirmed. Those arguments make the hearing more technical than the celebrity names suggest because the panel can focus on what a judge was legally allowed to consider before discovery or trial.
Drake also challenges the dismissal of his New York harassment and consumer-protection theories. He has separately asked for a state-law question to be sent to New York’s highest court. Second Circuit practice allows the merits panel to handle a certification request alongside the appeal, so the judges can deal with that issue during the same appellate process.
The background is already laid out in Drake’s arguments against the earlier Not Like Us ruling. December 4 is different because the lawyers now have to defend those positions live while the judges decide which parts of the briefing need closer testing.
The panel can affirm the dismissal, leaving Judge Vargas’s judgment in place. It can reverse some or all of the ruling and send the case back to the district court, usually called a remand. A mixed result is possible too, with one claim revived while another remains dismissed depending on how the panel resolves Drake’s separate appellate issues.
Certification creates another possible outcome. If the panel decides a disputed New York-law question needs an authoritative answer from the New York Court of Appeals, the federal appeal can be affected while the state court considers the certified issue. Certification is not automatic merely because Drake requested it.
Even a favorable appellate ruling would not mean Drake has proved defamation. A reversal at this stage could simply reinstate the complaint and return the case to the district court for further proceedings. The distinction matters because Drake’s scheduled Second Circuit hearing concerns whether the dismissal survives appellate review, not whether a jury has decided the truth of the disputed allegations.
Once judgment is entered, the appellate rules provide limited procedures for further review, including a petition for rehearing and, later, a possible request for Supreme Court review. The Second Circuit’s mandate is the step that ultimately transfers jurisdiction back to the district court when the appellate process reaches the appropriate point.
The hearing is the next major step in Graham v. UMG Recordings, Inc., but it is not a new trial and nobody is showing up to call witnesses. Lawyers are entering a case already heavily briefed, with Drake asking the court to revive claims Judge Jeannette Vargas dismissed in October 2025 and UMG asking the panel to leave the judgment alone.
The hearing tests the briefs, not new evidence
Federal appellate argument gives judges a chance to press lawyers on the written briefs. Under the appellate rules, Drake’s side opens and closes, while the judges can interrupt counsel and push on parts of the case that need a cleaner answer. The panel already has the briefs and record, so December 4 is less about prepared speeches and more about answering the court directly.Anyone expecting surprise witnesses or new evidence is looking at the wrong proceeding. The Second Circuit is reviewing what happened in the district court and whether the dismissal should stand under the applicable legal standards. Counsel can point the judges back to the record and controlling law, but oral argument does not reopen fact gathering.
Questions can reveal which issues are attracting judicial attention without revealing the eventual result. A 2026 academic paper on how judges use oral argument discusses functions including gathering information from lawyers and persuading colleagues. The paper studies the Supreme Court rather than the Second Circuit, so its findings are useful context, not evidence about how this particular panel will rule.
Drake and UMG face several live legal fights
The central fight is the district court’s conclusion that the challenged lyrics were nonactionable opinion when heard in the setting of a rap battle. Drake argues the ruling went too far and effectively treated diss tracks as a category where statements cannot amount to actionable fact. UMG says the broader artistic and feud context is exactly why a reasonable listener would understand the lyrics as rhetorical combat rather than factual reporting.Procedure matters too. Drake says the district court relied on material outside the complaint, made factual judgments, and drew conclusions against him at the dismissal stage. UMG disputes that framing and wants the judgment affirmed. Those arguments make the hearing more technical than the celebrity names suggest because the panel can focus on what a judge was legally allowed to consider before discovery or trial.
Drake also challenges the dismissal of his New York harassment and consumer-protection theories. He has separately asked for a state-law question to be sent to New York’s highest court. Second Circuit practice allows the merits panel to handle a certification request alongside the appeal, so the judges can deal with that issue during the same appellate process.
The background is already laid out in Drake’s arguments against the earlier Not Like Us ruling. December 4 is different because the lawyers now have to defend those positions live while the judges decide which parts of the briefing need closer testing.
The panel can reach several outcomes after argument
The court does not have to announce its ruling from the bench. Once the judges reach a decision, judgment is entered on the docket, with an opinion if the court issues one.The panel can affirm the dismissal, leaving Judge Vargas’s judgment in place. It can reverse some or all of the ruling and send the case back to the district court, usually called a remand. A mixed result is possible too, with one claim revived while another remains dismissed depending on how the panel resolves Drake’s separate appellate issues.
Certification creates another possible outcome. If the panel decides a disputed New York-law question needs an authoritative answer from the New York Court of Appeals, the federal appeal can be affected while the state court considers the certified issue. Certification is not automatic merely because Drake requested it.
Even a favorable appellate ruling would not mean Drake has proved defamation. A reversal at this stage could simply reinstate the complaint and return the case to the district court for further proceedings. The distinction matters because Drake’s scheduled Second Circuit hearing concerns whether the dismissal survives appellate review, not whether a jury has decided the truth of the disputed allegations.
Once judgment is entered, the appellate rules provide limited procedures for further review, including a petition for rehearing and, later, a possible request for Supreme Court review. The Second Circuit’s mandate is the step that ultimately transfers jurisdiction back to the district court when the appellate process reaches the appropriate point.
