Two amicus briefs filed in April 2026 asked the Second Circuit to affirm dismissal of Drake’s defamation claim against UMG.
Neither filing comes from UMG itself. Amicus briefs let outsiders offer legal arguments, specialist context, or consequences they think the court should consider, and the judges are free to use or ignore them. Here, both sets of amici support the same result while getting there by very different routes.
One brief comes from Yale Law School’s Floyd Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression and University of Florida professor Lyrissa Lidsky. The other comes from thirteen social scientists and legal scholars represented by UC Irvine’s Intellectual Property, Arts, and Technology Clinic. The difference between them is useful because it shows how wide the appeal has become beyond the basic opinion-versus-fact fight described in Drake’s current Not Like Us appeal.
UMG wants the dismissal affirmed. The outside briefs add arguments the panel can consider without turning the amici into parties. They do not get their own lawsuit, witnesses, or factual record, and their participation does not mean the judges have accepted what they say.
Their role still matters. A paper on amicus language appearing in judicial opinions used text analysis to examine how Supreme Court majority opinions drew on amicus submissions. It concerned a different court and cannot predict this appeal, but it helps explain why third-party briefing is more than decorative paperwork.
The practical setting is also easy to miss. When the lawyers appear for oral argument, the panel will already have the parties’ briefs, record, and these amicus submissions in front of it. Drake’s December 4 hearing is an appellate argument, not a new trial, so any value the outside briefs have comes from the legal and contextual arguments they put into the appellate record.
Its key example is “Taylor Made Freestyle.” The brief says Drake pushed Kendrick Lamar to keep the battle going and specifically goaded him toward allegations involving young girls. From there, the amici argue New York defamation law treats consent as an absolute defense when a plaintiff invited the publication at issue.
Drake rejects the theory. His reply brief calls the consent argument imaginative and says consent is an affirmative defense UMG never raised. He also argues the doctrine requires effective control over dissemination of the allegedly defamatory material, something he says he did not have once Lamar released his own track.
So the fight is not simply over whether Drake participated in a rap battle. The narrower legal dispute is whether his own lyrics amounted to consent to the particular defamatory statements he says were later published, and whether that issue can properly dispose of the case at the pleading stage.
They also connect the appeal to a longer fight over rap lyrics in court. The brief argues literal treatment can introduce racial stereotypes and prejudice, pointing to empirical work on how people judge identical violent language differently when they are told it is rap. Its concern is bigger than Drake’s case even though the requested result is still affirmation.
Drake pushes back on the premise that an ordinary listener would bring specialist knowledge of rap history to “Not Like Us.” His reply says the complaint alleged a much broader audience, including people who encountered the song through political events, awards coverage, or the Super Bowl rather than by following every exchange in the feud.
The two amicus briefs therefore give the panel distinct options. One says Drake’s own participation created a consent problem even if the court reaches beyond the opinion analysis. The other says the artistic setting itself supports reading the disputed lyrics as rhetorical expression rather than factual reporting. Neither theory binds the judges, but both now sit inside the appellate record the panel will consider.
Neither filing comes from UMG itself. Amicus briefs let outsiders offer legal arguments, specialist context, or consequences they think the court should consider, and the judges are free to use or ignore them. Here, both sets of amici support the same result while getting there by very different routes.
One brief comes from Yale Law School’s Floyd Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression and University of Florida professor Lyrissa Lidsky. The other comes from thirteen social scientists and legal scholars represented by UC Irvine’s Intellectual Property, Arts, and Technology Clinic. The difference between them is useful because it shows how wide the appeal has become beyond the basic opinion-versus-fact fight described in Drake’s current Not Like Us appeal.
The briefs enter a fight over what listeners understood
Judge Jeannette Vargas dismissed the defamation claim after treating the challenged lyrics as nonactionable opinion in the setting of a rap battle. Drake says the court defined the context too broadly and assumed an average listener knew far more about the feud than the complaint allowed.UMG wants the dismissal affirmed. The outside briefs add arguments the panel can consider without turning the amici into parties. They do not get their own lawsuit, witnesses, or factual record, and their participation does not mean the judges have accepted what they say.
Their role still matters. A paper on amicus language appearing in judicial opinions used text analysis to examine how Supreme Court majority opinions drew on amicus submissions. It concerned a different court and cannot predict this appeal, but it helps explain why third-party briefing is more than decorative paperwork.
The practical setting is also easy to miss. When the lawyers appear for oral argument, the panel will already have the parties’ briefs, record, and these amicus submissions in front of it. Drake’s December 4 hearing is an appellate argument, not a new trial, so any value the outside briefs have comes from the legal and contextual arguments they put into the appellate record.
The Yale brief says Drake invited the attack
The Yale filing offers a route that is separate from Judge Vargas’s main reasoning. It argues consent can independently defeat a defamation claim and says Drake invited the type of statements he later challenged.Its key example is “Taylor Made Freestyle.” The brief says Drake pushed Kendrick Lamar to keep the battle going and specifically goaded him toward allegations involving young girls. From there, the amici argue New York defamation law treats consent as an absolute defense when a plaintiff invited the publication at issue.
Drake rejects the theory. His reply brief calls the consent argument imaginative and says consent is an affirmative defense UMG never raised. He also argues the doctrine requires effective control over dissemination of the allegedly defamatory material, something he says he did not have once Lamar released his own track.
So the fight is not simply over whether Drake participated in a rap battle. The narrower legal dispute is whether his own lyrics amounted to consent to the particular defamatory statements he says were later published, and whether that issue can properly dispose of the case at the pleading stage.
The UCI brief puts rap conventions at the center
The second filing takes a broader cultural route. The thirteen scholars argue courts should evaluate diss tracks using rap’s artistic conventions, including hyperbole, insult, boasting, fictional persona, and competitive escalation rather than treating lyrics as ordinary factual declarations.They also connect the appeal to a longer fight over rap lyrics in court. The brief argues literal treatment can introduce racial stereotypes and prejudice, pointing to empirical work on how people judge identical violent language differently when they are told it is rap. Its concern is bigger than Drake’s case even though the requested result is still affirmation.
Drake pushes back on the premise that an ordinary listener would bring specialist knowledge of rap history to “Not Like Us.” His reply says the complaint alleged a much broader audience, including people who encountered the song through political events, awards coverage, or the Super Bowl rather than by following every exchange in the feud.
The two amicus briefs therefore give the panel distinct options. One says Drake’s own participation created a consent problem even if the court reaches beyond the opinion analysis. The other says the artistic setting itself supports reading the disputed lyrics as rhetorical expression rather than factual reporting. Neither theory binds the judges, but both now sit inside the appellate record the panel will consider.
