A group of respected scholars and social scientists are stepping into Drake’s legal clash with Universal Music Group—and they’re not on his side.
In a newly filed amicus brief supporting UMG, the group argues that rap lyrics shouldn’t be interpreted as literal facts. The document was put together by several notable academics, including Regina Bradley (author of Chronicling Stankonia: The Rise of the Hip-Hop South) and Erik Nielson (co-author of Rap on Trial: Race, Lyrics, and Guilt in America).
At the center of their argument is a push for a federal appeals court to uphold the dismissal of Drake’s defamation claim tied to Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us.” Drake had alleged that UMG knowingly promoted the track despite what he claims were false accusations within the song.
The scholars warn that Drake’s legal stance could set a troubling precedent, potentially reinforcing racial bias in courtrooms and raising serious First Amendment concerns.
“When rap lyrics are admitted [as evidence], it is because they are treated as literal,” the brief states. “This in turn opens the door to racial bias and stereotypes in the courtroom, as empirical studies demonstrate. Treating rap lyrics as literal also threatens First Amendment speech protections, and the practice already has created a demonstrable chilling effect across the industry.”
They emphasize that diss tracks have always been rooted in exaggeration, metaphor, and sharp insults—core elements of hip-hop culture since its emergence in the early 1970s.
“It is critically important that courts consider the particular artistic norms around rap battles when determining whether lyrics should be deemed factual representations,” the brief continues.
According to the scholars, even everyday listeners understand that diss records aren’t meant to be taken at face value, describing them as lyrical competitions rather than factual statements or news reports. They’re urging the court to treat rap as an art form, not literal testimony.
Drake initially filed his appeal back in January after his lawsuit was dismissed. His legal team argued that “Not Like Us” was widely taken as factual, claiming it led many people to believe damaging allegations about him.
“It is hard to imagine a statement more damaging to one’s reputation and safety than being labeled a ‘certified pedophile,’ which elicits intense vitriol, and can spur violent retaliation,” his attorneys stated. “The court’s rule brushes aside the risk of concrete reputational harms that can and here did spill over into violence.”
Last month, Universal Music Group fired back, arguing the appeal should fail because it attempts to “strip words from their context.” The company also suggested Drake’s move may be fueled by frustration after losing a rap battle.
