A federal judge has denied a bid by Sean “Diddy” Combs to overturn his prostitution convictions, clearing the path for sentencing later this week.
In a ruling late Tuesday (Sept. 30), Judge Arun Subramanian rejected Combs’ various arguments for a new trial, including his eyebrow-raising claim that the “freak-off” sex parties at the heart of the case were just porn movie shoots protected by the First Amendment.
“Illegal activity can’t be laundered into constitutionally protected activity just by the desire to watch it,” the judge wrote. “Combs’s conduct goes far beyond that point.”
Judge Subramanian also rejected arguments about the Mann Act, the federal prostitution law Combs violated. His lawyers argued that the star merely hired men for consensual sex with his girlfriend, which they said didn’t meet the definition of “prostitution.” But the judge didn’t buy it.
“That definition would narrow prostitution almost out of existence,” he wrote. “It would exclude any situation in which a person pays a third party (like a brothel) to have sex with an employee.”
The ruling will clear the way for Combs’ sentencing, which is scheduled for Friday (Oct. 3). Prosecutors are seeking 11 years, while defense attorneys say Combs should get just 14 months — a sentence that would see him released almost immediately on time served.
Combs was arrested and charged in September 2024 with racketeering (RICO) and sex trafficking violations over accusations that he ran a sprawling criminal operation aimed at facilitating “freak-offs” — elaborate events which he allegedly forced ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura and other women to have sex with male escorts while he watched and masturbated.
Following a blockbuster trial this spring, jurors issued a verdict clearing Combs on the RICO and sex trafficking charges that could have seen him sentenced to prison for life. But he was still convicted on two other counts for transporting Ventura and others across state lines for the purposes of prostitution.
In July, Combs’ lawyers asked the judge to overturn those convictions, calling them an “unprecedented” and unconstitutional use of the Mann Act against their client.
“Sean Combs sits in jail based on evidence that he paid adult male escorts and entertainers who engaged in consensual sexual activities with his former girlfriends, which he videotaped and later watched with the girlfriends,” his lawyers wrote. “That is not prostitution, and if it is, his conviction is unconstitutional.”
But in Tuesday’s decision, Judge Subramanian said there were no constitutional issues with the century-old statute or the way the government was now wielding it against Combs.
“Combs is right that the Mann Act’s text and application have changed over the last century,” the judge wrote. “But that has little relevance to his conduct, which sits at the heartland of the Act’s legitimate proscriptions. Unsurprisingly then, his conviction raises no constitutional problem.”
The judge also rejected arguments that there was simply not enough evidence to support the prostitution convictions. He ruled that prosecutors had “presented overwhelming evidence of Combs’s guilt under the Mann Act on many occasions” and that the government “proved its case many times over.”
In addition to clearing the way for sentencing, Tuesday’s ruling also sets the stage for Combs’ certain appeal of his convictions. Procedurally, such post-trial motions must be filed and denied by a trial judge before an appeal can be filed at a circuit court.
