In the United States, Kid Cudi has asked a California court to dismiss a lawsuit filed by M.I.A. over her removal from his Rebel Rangers Tour, arguing that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects his right to control the artistic content and casting of his live shows.
In a motion filed Tuesday (Sept. 8), Cudi’s attorney Mathew Rosengart wrote that the case “fails on its face” and must be immediately dismissed because it threatens constitutional free speech rights.
Background of the dispute#
M.I.A., whose legal name is Mathangi Arulpragasam, filed the lawsuit in May after Cudi, whose legal name is Scott Mescudi, removed her from the tour. The removal followed onstage remarks in Dallas in which she told fans she had been “canceled for being a brown Republican voter.”
Cudi announced in early May that M.I.A. had been dropped after she was booed. Her statements included:
- “canceled for being a brown Republican voter”
- “free Palestine”
- condemning U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
- referencing her song “Illegal” before saying “some of you could be in the audience”
The “brown Republican” line was likely a reference to criticism she received after her public endorsement of President Donald Trump in 2024.
At the time, Cudi said: “M.I.A. is no longer on this tour,” adding that her team had been warned he “didn’t want anything offensive” during the Rebel Rangers tour. “I won’t have someone on my tour making offensive remarks that upsets my fanbase.”
M.I.A.’s breach claims#
In her May 29 lawsuit, M.I.A. argued that the firing was illegal. Her attorney Howard King wrote that her contract with Live Nation explicitly authorized her to speak her mind, and that Cudi used her statements as a pretext to remove her.
“M.I.A. was terminated to generate publicity for the tour, which has struggled with ticket sales,” King wrote. “She was contractually allowed to say whatever she wanted on stage. M.I.A. now holds Kid Cudi accountable for his bad faith destruction of her contractual rights, business opportunities, and reputation.”
Anti-SLAPP motion and precedent#
In Tuesday’s filing, Cudi’s attorneys argued that the case should be dismissed under California’s anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) law, a statute designed to quickly end lawsuits that threaten free speech. They said the tour was a form of artistic expression and that Cudi was legally entitled to decide what the shows would look like.
Rosengart wrote that the claims are barred by the anti-SLAPP law because they arise from Mescudi’s exercise of free-speech rights on matters of public interest, including “casting decisions about who would perform with him on tour.”
Cudi’s attorneys cited a 2019 ruling in favor of rocker Eddie Money over his decision to fire drummer Glenn Symmonds from a concert tour. That court said Money was shielded from a discrimination lawsuit by the anti-SLAPP statute because the decision was “in furtherance of the exercise of his constitutional right of free speech.”
Rosengart also wrote: “The challenged conduct of supposedly having M.I.A. removed from performing on the tour also directly concerns the casting, content, and character of a live musical performance which, by law, makes it protected free-speech conduct under an anti-SLAPP motion.”
M.I.A.’s attorney did not immediately return a request for comment.
