The legal battle between rap legend JAY-Z and Jane Doe has tumbled into 2025 as Jane Doe’s attorney, Tony Buzbee, unleashed a sharp critique of JAY-Z’s motion to dismiss her sexual assault lawsuit.
The high-profile case, stemming from allegations of a 2000 assault, has seen JAY-Z’s defense team mount a multi-faceted argument for dismissal. But Buzbee is firing back with equal ferocity, trying to dismantle the foundation of the rapper’s claims.
Buzbee’s response, filed on behalf of his client, portrays JAY-Z’s legal strategy as misguided, premature and inconsistent with the law’s intent. He argues that the law is on his client’s side, and he’s not afraid to pick apart every element of the business tycoon’s defense.
One of JAY-Z’s key defenses is that the New York City Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act (GMV Law) doesn’t apply retroactively, as the alleged assault occurred in September 2000—three months before the law was enacted.
However, Buzbee argues that this interpretation undermines the very purpose of the statute, which he claims was a federal civil remedy for gender-motivated violence. He cited the legislative history of the GMVA, which he says was designed to give victims a pathway to justice—even for incidents that occurred before the law’s enactment.
Buzbee dismissed JAY-Z’s reliance on lower-court rulings as unconvincing, pointing out that neither the Second Circuit nor the New York Court of Appeals has definitively ruled on the retroactivity of the GMVA.
JAY-Z’s team also contends that the GMVA claims are time-barred under the Child Victims Act (CVA), which preempts overlapping statutes. Not so, argues Buzbee.
He pointed to prior court decisions where similar preemption arguments were rejected.
“Local anti-discrimination laws are generally not preempted by state law in New York,” Buzbee asserted, adding that JAY-Z’s reliance on this argument is legally flawed.
JAY-Z’s final line of defense is geographic. His team claims the alleged assault took place outside New York City, making it ineligible under the GMVA.
Buzbee, however, called this argument both premature and procedurally improper and urged the court to deny the motion on these grounds, emphasizing that discovery hasn’t yet begun.
“The GMVA was designed to help survivors, not to give alleged perpetrators a loophole,” Buzbee seethed.