Kid Cudi Says M.I.A. Lawsuit Is D.O.A. Because of the First Amendment: ‘Fails on Its Face’

Kid Cudi says M.I.A. cannot sue him for kicking her off his Rebel Rangers Tour after she made politically-charged statements, arguing the First Amendment protects his right to choose the “content of his own concert tour.”

 The “Paper Planes” rapper (Mathangi Arulpragasam) filed a lawsuit against Cudi (Scott Mescudi) in May after he booted her from the tour — a move that came after she told fans from the stage that she had been “canceled for being a brown Republican voter.”

But in a motion Tuesday (Sept. 8), Cudi’s attorney Mathew Rosengart says the case “fails on its face” and must be immediately dismissed because it threatens his constitutional rights.

“Plaintiffs impermissibly seek to hold a musical artist liable for exercising his First Amendment free-speech rights concerning artistic expression — namely, defendant’s artistic and political content of his own concert tour,” Rosengart writes.

Cudi announced in early May that M.I.A. had been removed from the tour after she was booed onstage in Dallas for lines like the “brown Republican” quip — likely a reference to criticism she received after her public endorsement of President Donald Trump in 2024. She also called for a “free Palestine,” condemned ICE, and referenced her song “Illegal” before saying that “some of you could be in the audience.”

“M.I.A. is no longer on this tour,” Cudi said at the time, adding her team had been explicitly warned that 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.”

In a May 29 lawsuit, M.I.A. claimed that firing was illegal. Her attorneys argued that her contract with Live Nation explicitly authorized her to speak her mind — and that Cudi had merely used her statements as a pretext to boot her.

“M.I.A. was terminated to generate publicity for the tour, which has struggled with ticket sales,” the rapper’s attorney, Howard King, wrote at the time. “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.”

But in Tuesday’s filing, Cudi’s attorneys say the case should be tossed out under California’s so-called anti-SLAPP law, a state statute designed to quickly end lawsuits that threaten free speech. The tour was a form of artistic expression, his lawyers say, and he was legally entitled to decide what the shows would look like.

“Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by California’s anti-SLAPP law because they arise from Mescudi’s exercise of free-speech rights concerning matters of public interest — making casting decisions about who would perform with him on tour,” Rosengart writes.

Notably, 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 it was “in furtherance of the exercise of his constitutional right of free speech.”

“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,” Cudi’s attorney writes.

M.I.A.’s attorney did not immediately return a request for comment.