Megan Thee Stallion Wins Restraining Order Against Tory Lanez After Tearful Testimony: ‘He’ll Shoot Me Again’

Megan Thee Stallion won a restraining order against Tory Lanez on Thursday (Jan. 9) after tearfully testifying before a Los Angeles judge that she’s scared he’ll “shoot me again” when released from prison and “maybe this time I won’t make it.”

A month after the star’s lawyers warned that Lanez has continued to “terrorize her” with a “campaign of harassment” even as he sits behind bars, Judge Richard Bloom granted her a civil restraining order that will bar Lanez from any harassing conduct for the next five years.

The ruling came after emotional testimony from Megan herself, who fought back tears as she told Bloom that she hasn’t “been at peace since I was shot” and is “just tired of being harassed.”

“It just seems like I have to relive it every day. The person who shot me won’t let me forget it,” Megan told the judge via livestream video conference. “I’m scared that when he gets out of jail he’s going to still be upset with me … I feel like maybe he’ll shoot me again and maybe this time I won’t make it.”

Judge Bloom issued the order from the bench, saying that Megan had shown a “credible threat of violence” and other potential wrongdoing that “seriously harasses the petitioner and serves no lawful purpose.” The order bars a wide range of conduct, including any contact or harassment through any means.

After Bloom issued the order, the star briefly unmuted her microphone: “Thank you, judge.”

Lanez was convicted in 2022 on three felony counts over the violent 2020 incident, in which a drunken argument in the Hollywood Hills escalated into a shooting. After Lanez allegedly yelled “Dance, bitch!,” he proceeded to shoot at Megan’s feet with a handgun, striking her multiple times. In 2023, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison; he has filed an appeal, which remains pending.

In recent months, Megan’s attorneys have fought what they call an unlawful campaign by Lanez to spread misinformation about the case on the internet — like a viral story that circulated on X in October falsely claiming an appeals court had declared him “innocent.”

In October, Megan’s lawyers filed a federal lawsuit against YouTuber and social media personality Milagro Gramz, who she claims has served as a “mouthpiece and puppet” for the convicted singer. In later filings, they alleged that discovery in the case had revealed prison phone calls in which Lanez coordinated payments to Gramz.

And last month, Megan’s attorneys demanded the civil harassment restraining order in Los Angeles court, arguing Lanez had conspired with people outside the prison to “harass, bully, and antagonize” her. They said they had only recently learned that the criminal restraining order from the shooting case was no longer in place and that it could not now be reimposed.

“Mr. Peterson’s attempts to retraumatize and revictimize Ms. Pete recognize no limits — indeed, they continue even while he is behind bars,” Megan’s lawyers wrote at the time. “While Mr. Peterson distorts and recklessly disregards the truth in his desperate attempt to appeal his conviction, his false assertions have reignited a slew of negative, harmful, and defamatory comments directed to Ms. Pete.”

Attorneys for Lanez responded late last month, calling the petition a “frivolous request” and accusing Megan of trying to “weaponize the justice system” because she “disagrees with free speech” and couldn’t handle criticism: “Rather than rebut the commentary or debate the issues … Plaintiff has succumbed to the current trend of using the legal system in an attempt to cancel those opinions she disagrees with.”

At Thursday’s hearing, Lanez’s attorney Michael Hayden reiterated those arguments, saying his client was “not threatening the petitioner in any way.” Instead, he argued that Megan was simply upset about criticism from internet bloggers with “their own independent minds” who Lanez cannot control — and he warned that such a restraining order would violate the First Amendment.

“This is about an attempt to chill free speech based on prior restraint,” the attorney told the judge.

At one point, Megan herself returned to the virtual witness stand to rebut that point, saying she was “not trying to take anyone’s free speech away” but rather to stop Lanez from continuing to drive harmful harassment from behind the scenes.

“I understand that being a public figure comes with hearing a lot of people from all over the world talk about you,” she told the judge. “The problem that I have is that the man that shot me is orchestrating other people and paying people  … to put out lies and smear campaigns against me.”

In issuing his ruling, Judge Bloom seemed to avoid the issue of online smears and instead focus on the potential for violence, citing the 2020 shooting that lay at the heart of the case.

“We have a shooting that took place … and with a violent act like that there’s a ripple effect that continues on,” the judge said. “In some cases, it may be small ripples that go away with time, and in other cases, it could be ripples that grow with time. Ms. Pete’s testimony here seems to make clear that the ripple effect here has been significant.”