Travis Scott and Other Artists Urge Supreme Court to Review Death Penalty Case Involving Rap Lyrics

A coalition of hip-hop artists and legal advocates is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to examine a Texas death penalty case involving the use of rap lyrics as evidence. Among those supporting the appeal is rapper Travis Scott, whose legal team submitted an amicus brief arguing that prosecutors improperly relied on rap lyrics during sentencing.

The case centers on James Garfield Broadnax, a Texas man who was convicted in 2009 for the fatal shooting of two individuals during a robbery near Garland, Texas. A jury found Broadnax guilty and later sentenced him to death. According to court records, prosecutors introduced dozens of pages of Broadnax’s handwritten rap lyrics during the sentencing phase of the trial to support their argument that he posed a continuing danger to society.

Broadnax’s attorneys are now asking the Supreme Court of the United States to halt his scheduled execution and review whether the use of those lyrics violated constitutional protections.

Scott’s legal team filed an amicus brief, a legal document submitted by outside parties with an interest in a case, arguing that prosecutors effectively penalized Broadnax for creating rap music.

According to the filing, prosecutors suggested Broadnax’s artistic expression demonstrated a propensity for future violence. Scott’s lawyers argue that framing rap lyrics in that way amounts to punishing protected speech.

“The prosecutors argued Mr. Broadnax was likely to be dangerous in the future simply because he engaged in ‘gangster rap,’” Scott’s brief states. “Such an argument functionally operates as a categorical and straightforwardly unconstitutional content-based penalty on rap music as a form of expression.”

The brief also argues that removing rap lyrics from their creative and cultural context risks exposing the genre to similar treatment in criminal prosecutions. “At a certain level of abstraction, the reality is even more problematic: taking rap music out of context subjects the entire genre to prosecution,” the filing states.

Scott’s lawyers also argue that rap music, which they describe as “primarily created by and historically associated with minority artists,” is protected by the First Amendment. The brief urges the Supreme Court to clarify the constitutional limits of using protected artistic expression as evidence of criminal propensity.

Attorney Ellyde R. Thompson, who represents Scott in the matter, said the case raises questions about how courts treat artistic expression in criminal cases. “A death sentence should never be based in any part on constitutionally protected artistic expression,” Thompson said in a statement about the filing.

A separate amicus brief submitted by a group of artists and scholars echoes that argument. The coalition includes prominent hip-hop figures such as Killer Mike, T.I., Young Thug, Fat Joe, and N.O.R.E., along with academics who study the cultural history of rap.

Their brief argues that rap lyrics frequently rely on fictional storytelling, exaggeration, and established narrative conventions, and that treating them as literal autobiography misunderstands the genre’s artistic traditions.

“Exaggerated tales of violence, sex, and criminal behavior are conventions of the form,” the brief states, adding that artists often adopt personas and narratives that should not be interpreted as factual statements about their lives.

The filing also states that introducing rap lyrics during sentencing amplifies racial stereotypes. According to the brief, such evidence may encourage jurors to associate the defendant with harmful stereotypes about Black men and hip-hop culture.

Legal scholars supporting Broadnax’s appeal say the case highlights a trend in criminal prosecutions across the United States where rap lyrics have been introduced as evidence of criminal intent or character.

Chad Baruch, an attorney involved in the brief submitted by Killer Mike and other supporters, said the case could help the Supreme Court clarify how courts should treat artistic expression in criminal proceedings. “This case presents an ideal opportunity for the Court to address the criminalization of rap as an art form,” Baruch said in a statement accompanying the filing.

As Killer Mike told reporters while discussing the case, rap music, regardless of its tone or subject matter, remains a form of artistic interpretation rather than a literal confession.

Lucius T. Outlaw III, another attorney involved in the case, said Texas prosecutors relied on Broadnax’s lyrics during sentencing in a way that, he argued, appealed to racial stereotypes. According to Outlaw, the state portrayed the lyrics as evidence of dangerousness rather than creative writing.

Attorneys representing the state of Texas dispute those claims. In their response, they argue that Broadnax’s legal team raised objections to the lyrics too late in the appeals process. Prosecutors also maintain that the lyrics were referenced only briefly during the proceedings and were not central to the case.

The Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will agree to hear the appeal. If the Court grants the request for review, known as a petition for a writ of certiorari, the justices would consider whether the use of rap lyrics as sentencing evidence violates First Amendment protections or contributes to racial bias in capital cases.