Afroman won a jury verdict Wednesday (March 18) clearing him of wrongdoing in a lawsuit filed by seven Ohio police officers, who claimed the rapper defamed them by releasing music videos that mocked them after a failed raid on his home.

The verdict came in an unusual lawsuit filed by members of an Ohio county sheriff’s department over songs and social media posts by Afroman (Joseph Foreman) that harshly criticized the guns-drawn 2022 raid on his property, which yielded no charges.

The case claimed the videos were false and caused the officers severe emotional distress. But Afroman, known for his 2000 hit “Because I Got High,” testified at trial that he had a First Amendment right to mock the officers, particularly after they smashed down his door for ultimately no reason: “All of this is their fault, and they have the audacity to sue me.”

After just hours of deliberation on Wednesday, the jury sided entirely with Afroman, clearing him of liability for defamation or invasion of privacy: “In all circumstances, the jury finds in favor of the defendant,” Judge Jonathan Hein said, speaking to the rapper, the accusers, and their lawyers. Afroman briefly bowed his head, but otherwise showed no emotion after the verdict was read.

The verdict ended a three-day trial that captivated social media with outlandish moments from the courtroom, including Afroman mounting a colorful defense from the witness stand in a flamboyant American flag suit; one of the deputies crying repeatedly as a video insulting her played for more than 10 minutes; and a testy exchange in which Afroman’s lawyer asked another deputy if his wife was cheating on him.

The outcome is a major win for Afroman, who could have faced a whopping $3.9 million damages award if he’d lost. Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return requests for comment on Wednesday.

In August 2022, the Adams County Sheriff’s Department raided Afroman’s home with guns drawn, smashing down his door and seizing $5,031 in cash and other property. They had a search warrant on suspicions of drug trafficking and kidnapping, but no wrongdoing was uncovered, no charges were ever filed and the money was later returned.

After the search, Afroman used his own surveillance camera footage to create music videos and other social posts mocking the officers. In a video for a song called “Lemon Pound Cake,” he ridiculed one deputy for apparently eyeing a cake on his counter. In another social media post, he included images of officer Lisa Phillips alongside graphic statements about her anatomy and sexuality.

In 2023, Phillips and six others (Shawn D. Cooley, Justin Cooley, Michael D. Estep, Shawn S. Grooms, Brian Newland and Randolph L. Walters, Jr.) filed a civil lawsuit claiming they’d suffered “emotional distress” and been “subjected to threats, including death threats” because of Afroman’s posts.

At trial in Adams County this week, Afroman told jurors from the witness stand that he had a constitutional right to make such artistic and critical content, particularly about government officials. That argument echoed what the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wrote in 2023, when it called the lawsuit against Afroman “nothing short of absurd.”

“I got freedom of speech. After they run around my house with guns and kick down my door, I got the right to kick a can in my back yard, use my freedom of speech, and turn my bad times into a good time, yes I do,” he told jurors on Tuesday. “And I think I’m a sport for doing so, because I don’t go to their house, kick down their doors [and] then try to play the victim and sue them.”

In another flashy moment on the stand, Afroman explained to jurors why he had later invited a local TV news crew to accompany him to the sheriff’s station to get his money back — not because he wanted publicity, but because he feared for his safety.

“I didn’t wanna get beat up or Epstein’d at the sheriff’s station after I seen them running around my house with AR15s,” the rapper said, referring to persistent internet rumors that infamous sexual abuser Jeffrey Epstein’s prison suicide was staged and he was actually murdered. “That’s why I brought the news and my attorney.”

The Adams County deputies themselves also took the stand, including Cooley, the officer Afroman referred to as “Officer Poundcake,” who watched that music video in the courtroom. When Phillips got on the stand, she wept as a long video played in which Afroman labeled her “Licc’em Low Lisa” and crudely suggested that she was a lesbian.

During one heated exchange, Walters testified about a video in which Afroman repeatedly says that he had sex with the officer’s wife. Walters said listeners had understood that statement as factual and that it had caused him “tremendous pain.”

“But we all know that’s not true, right?” fired back David Osborne, the rapper’s lawyer, to which Walters said that he didn’t know. “You don’t know if your wife’s cheating on you or not?” Osborne then asked, prompting Walters to angrily glare back and ask, “You wanna go there?”

“No, I just wanna ask that question since you said we don’t know,” said Osborne, seemingly trying to suggest to jurors that the statement couldn’t be proven true or false, a key requirement of a defamation claim.

In their closing statements on Wednesday, attorneys for both sides clashed over the lofty free speech issues raised by Afroman’s defense. Robert Klingler, the lawyer for the officers, told the jury that Afroman had “perpetuated lies intentionally” for years about public servants who had “risked their lives for this county for years” — and that his framing of the case as a First Amendment battle was “legally wrong.”

“Mr. Foreman doesn’t get to wrap himself in the American flag and say you can’t touch me, I can say what I want, no matter how untrue it is, no matter how much pain it causes people, because I have freedom of speech,” Klingler said. “He can’t do that.”

Osborne quickly fired back that he can, in fact, do that. In a closing statement that cited NWA’s “F–k Tha Police” and Richard Pryor’s comedy acts, Osborne told jurors that powerful public officials cannot use the courts to “silence” criticism simply because it hurt their feelings.

“I’m sorry they feel the way they do, but there’s a certain amount that you have to take as a public official, it’s part of the duties of the job,” Osborne said. “What chilling effect does that have on the world we live in? You don’t like what a public official does and you make a joke, and you’re dragged into court?”

The DHS has responded to Olivia Rodrigo‘s recent remarks about the department’s use of one of her songs in a video promoting ICE.

In a statement shared with Billboard on Thursday (March 19) — just hours after the singer’s British Vogue cover story was published, featuring Rodrigo calling ICE’s actions “disturbing” — a spokesperson for the DHS said, “America is grateful all the time for our federal law enforcement officers who keep us safe.”

“We suggest Ms. Rodrigo thank them for their service, not belittle their sacrifice,” it continued. “ICE does NOT separate families. Parents are given a choice to either take their child with them or place them in the care of someone they designate. This is consistent with past administration’s immigration enforcement.”

Billboard has reached out to Rodrigo’s rep for comment.

The first sentence in the DHS spokesperson’s comment references lyrics in Rodrigo’s “All-American Bitch,” the song used in a November video glorifying footage of ICE officers tackling and forcibly detaining people. At the time, the Grammy winner had commented, “don’t ever use my songs to promote your racist, hateful propaganda.”

Four months later, Rodrigo again condemned ICE in British Vogue. “That was awful. Dystopian,” she said of finding out the agency had used her Billboard Hot 100 hit without permission. “The way that ICE is ripping apart communities and terrorizing people is so disturbing. It’s a really sad, scary time.”

Even before the unauthorized song usage, Rodrigo was speaking out against ICE. Amid the organization’s raids on immigrant communities in Los Angeles last year, she wrote on her Instagram Story, “I’ve lived in LA my whole life and I’m deeply upset about these violent deportations of my neighbors under the current administration … Treating hardworking community members with such little respect, empathy, and due process is awful.”

Numerous other stars have voiced criticism for the actions of ICE under President Donald Trump as well, particularly after the deaths of Minnesotan civilians Renee Good and Alex Pretti, both of whom were shot and killed by immigration enforcement officers in Minneapolis at the beginning of the year. The DHS has also hit back at other musicians beyond Rodrigo, claiming in a statement to Billboard that Billie Eilish was spreading “garbage rhetoric” by resharing posts calling ICE a “terrorist organization” in January.

A jury has rejected legal claims brought against Chance the Rapper by his longtime manager Pat Corcoran, known as Pat the Manager.

Chicago jurors came back with the verdict on Friday night (March 20) following a two-and-a-half week trial in the messy legal battle between Chance (born Chancelor Bennett) and Corcoran, who were once inseparable but parted ways on bad terms a few years back.

Corcoran first sued Chance in 2020, alleging he was owed $3.8 million in unpaid commissions — including under a so-called “sunset clause” that ran three years post-termination — even though the two never had a written contract. The jury rejected those claims on Friday, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

Jurors also sided with Chance on his 2021 countersuit, which accused Cocoran of breaching fiduciary duties and exploiting career opportunities for his own benefit. But they awarded the rapper only $35 in damages, per the Sun-Times, rather than the $1 million sought by Chance.

In a statement sent to Billboard, Jay Scharkey, an attorney for Corcoran, said, “We respect the jury’s decision, but the message to music managers is clear: Get it in writing. The jury award of $35 speaks to how seriously the jury viewed Chance’s case.”

A representative for Chance did not immediately provide comment on the outcome.

The verdict followed closing arguments on Friday, during which lawyers for Chance and Corcoran made their final pitches to the jury in the years-long legal fight.

“This story is about someone who becomes famous and forgets what it took to get him there,” said Robert D. Sweeney, one of Corcoran’s lawyers, setting the tone for his closing statement.

Sweeney argued that the case centers on securing the money Corcoran says he’s owed under a 15% net deal allegedly struck early in Chance’s career in 2013, including the three-year post-termination “sunset clause.” 

Sweeney pointed to Corcoran as the “common denominator” in Chance’s success, citing the 2016 album Coloring Book’s feats on the Billboard 200, where it spent 125 weeks, plus his three Grammy wins the following year. He went on to compare it to Chance’s 2025 Star Line, released after the two stopped working together, which spent just one week on the Billboard 200. “You can be great, but if you don’t have the right people around you, how’s that going to work out?” Sweeney said.

Sweeney added that there was “no doubt Pat loved this guy,” describing how Corcoran went the extra mile by taking on roles in promotion and distribution. “Pat took his 15% and did everything to prove the big labels wrong and the importance of staying independent,” he said.

“This [case] is about two guys working their butts off, then having a disagreement, parting ways and someone not getting paid,” Sweeney said, adding: “Pat brings a claim for breach of contract of an oral agreement. It’s hard to know what was said, so it’s about which story makes sense.”

When Chance’s lawyer, Precious S. Jacobs-Perry, took the floor, she told jurors that there is “no evidence” of a sunset agreement beyond “Pat’s own say so,” framing the case as “all about Pat’s greed and wanting something he doesn’t deserve. Just because you want it, doesn’t mean you take it.”

Jacobs-Perry presented written communications between the two parties starting in 2014, in which Corcoran outlined the oral agreement, which included the 15% management commission but made no mention of the post-termination agreement. The alleged sunset clause, she said, was first mentioned in Corcoran’s November 2020 lawsuit.

She went on to argue that Corcoran took undue credit for the rapper’s success while building his own ventures, ultimately neglecting Chance’s projects. “All companies he created had nothing to do with Chance, he was investing in himself. Pat used his position to enrich himself repeatedly,” she said, adding, “He chose not to be by Chance’s side like he was before.”

Jacobs-Perry also pointed to alleged lapses in management, including 24,000 merchandise orders that went unfulfilled in 2019, arguing Corcoran had become “absent” and overly reliant on delegation.

She further accused Corcoran of seeking equity in Chance’s recordings through UnitedMasters in 2017. According to Jacobs-Perry, Chance confronted him after the fact, “hoping his friend would tell him it wasn’t true.” Sweeney, however, maintained his client was not seeking ownership, but compensation for past work.

In closing, Jacobs-Perry said two key questions remain: whether the alleged sunset agreement exists, and whether Corcoran “interfered” in Chance’s career by inserting himself into deals without the artist’s knowledge.

“Pat filed his complaint, Chance decided to stand up for himself,” she said. “Chance chose independence, freedom and Pat had a golden opportunity to work with a talented artist. But he squandered that opportunity by betraying his friend.”