WASHINGTON, D.C. — Prominent rap artists and music industry figures have filed amicus briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting Texas death row condemned man James Broadnax, urging the court to halt his scheduled April 30 execution while it considers claims of constitutional violations during his trial.
The briefs were filed March 9 in connection with Broadnax’s appeal asking the Supreme Court to grant a stay of execution while the court considers claims that constitutional errors during his trial led to his conviction and death sentence.
Broadnax, a 37-year-old Black man, was convicted in 2009 for the killings of two people during a robbery in Dallas. His legal team argues that the trial was tainted by racial bias and the misuse of rap lyrics he had written, which prosecutors introduced during the sentencing phase of the trial to portray him as a continuing threat to society.
One of the amicus briefs was spearheaded by rapper Killer Mike and the Howard University School of Law Criminal Justice Clinic. The filing was also signed by several artists, music executives and scholars, including T.I., Fat Joe, Young Thug and Kevin Liles.
The brief argues that rap lyrics are a form of artistic and cultural expression protected by the First Amendment and should not be used as evidence of criminal intent. Another amicus brief filed by rapper Travis Scott similarly argues that rap lyrics are frequently misunderstood when presented in court without proper context.
In that brief, Scott’s attorneys write that “rap is one of the most popular musical genres in the world, and one of America’s most celebrated and wide-reaching exports,” yet the genre has increasingly been used by prosecutors in criminal trials “in a manner that exploits and perpetuates stereotypes associated with the genre and the artists who engage in it.”
The filing further argues that the case raises a broader constitutional issue about how artistic expression can be used in criminal proceedings. It states that the prosecution’s argument in Broadnax’s sentencing hearing was especially troubling because prosecutors suggested he was dangerous simply because he performed “gangster rap,” which the brief describes as “a categorical and straightforwardly unconstitutional content-based penalty on rap music as a form of expression.”
The brief emphasizes that rap lyrics often contain fictionalized storytelling, exaggeration and metaphor. Citing scholarship on the genre, the filing explains that rap lyrics frequently include “metaphors and boasts” and “exaggerated and invented boasts of criminal acts,” which are meant as artistic expression rather than literal statements.
Supporters also point to examples from other music genres to illustrate the argument. The briefs reference well-known songs such as Johnny Cash’s “Folsom Prison Blues,” which includes the lyric “I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die,” and Bob Marley’s “I Shot the Sheriff,” noting that such lyrics are widely understood as artistic expression rather than literal admissions of criminal behavior.
In addition to the rap lyrics issue, Broadnax’s legal team has raised concerns about jury selection during the trial. According to court filings, prosecutors struck every qualified Black juror during jury selection, leaving Broadnax to be sentenced by a nearly all-white jury.
An amicus brief filed by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund argues that racial discrimination in jury selection undermines the integrity of the justice system. The filing states that the Equal Protection Clause requires that “race discrimination be eliminated from all official acts and proceedings of the State,” and warns that discriminatory jury selection practices threaten both the fairness and legitimacy of criminal trials.
The brief also emphasizes the broader democratic stakes involved in jury exclusion. It notes that excluding Black citizens from jury service “constitutes a primary example of the evil the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to cure” and undermines public confidence in the justice system.
According to the filing, the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office has a documented history of disproportionately removing Black jurors in capital cases. The brief cites historical evidence showing that prosecutors in Dallas County have long engaged in practices designed to exclude Black prospective jurors from jury service.
Newly disclosed evidence cited in the appeal suggests prosecutors maintained spreadsheets identifying jurors by race during the selection process. The practice could violate the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1986 ruling in Batson v. Kentucky, which prohibits prosecutors from excluding jurors based on race.
Broadnax has spent nearly two decades on death row. Supporters say that during his incarceration he has maintained a strong disciplinary record and has served as a peer counselor to other incarcerated people.
He also mentors young people through the Chris Young Foundation and participates in a faith-based rehabilitation program at the Allan B. Polunsky Unit, where he is incarcerated.
His attorneys are asking the Supreme Court to pause the execution so new evidence, including documents related to jury selection that were not previously disclosed, can be fully reviewed.
The court is expected to decide whether to grant a stay of execution before the scheduled April 30 execution date.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
With cases such as this, there is often an urgency placed on incrimination, and a rush to construct a narrative in which rap is flattened into violence and degeneracy. I feel that in any other context, lyrical innuendos and exaggerations wouldn’t have been treated as incriminating evidence, let alone valid enough to warrant execution or indicate guilt. With no other explanation besides judicial racism, I’m curious why rap is always subjected to a kind of interpretive literalism that denies it the artistic appreciation routinely applied to other genres. I also really appreciated how you included Broadnax’s positive contributions, humanizing details like his mentoring and peer counseling often get lost in these reports. If and when the Supreme Court engages with the amicus briefs, do you think they’ll focus on the First Amendment argument around artistic expression, or the Fourteenth Amendment issue of jury discrimination? I’m looking forward to your coverage of the Court’s final ruling once it’s handed down.