Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’ lawyers are challenging his conviction on prostitution-related charges, saying his four-year sentencing on those charges is too harsh. His lawyers argued that recordings of his s- – ual encounters should be protected under the First Amendment as adult content created in private settings.
Diddy was convicted last July under the federal Mann Act on charges related to transporting individuals across state lines for illegal activity. He was acquitted of s-x trafficking and racketeering charges that could have resulted in a life sentence.
On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan held a two-hour-long hearing and did not immediately issue a ruling, ABC News reported.
View this post on Instagram
During Thursday’s hearing, circuit judges questioned whether Judge Arun Subramanian relied on elements of acquitted charges when imposing the four-year sentence.
Combs’ lawyer, Alexandra Shapiro, said his prison term was longer than the sentences imposed on defendants with similar offenses and criminal histories.
According to documents obtained by PEOPLE previously, Combs’ lawyers formally appealed the conviction last December. They argued that the encounters were consensual, and the judge imposed an excessively harsh judgment.
Federal prosecutors responded in February, saying Combs was a repeat offender who used threats and violence against victims.
Regarding the sentencing, Judge Subramanian said Diddy was “being sentenced for the offences of conviction, not the crimes he was acquitted of. However, under law, the court ‘shall consider’ the nature of the offence and characteristics of the defendant.”
While there were extensive written arguments on the matter, on Thursday, there was no discussion regarding Diddy’s lawyers’ demands for his sentencing to be reversed based on the previously mentioned First Amendment grounds.
Now judges are pressing prosecutors in Diddy’s appeal 👀
⚖️ Questioning use of acquitted conduct
⚖️ Forcing the gov’t to defend the sentence
💬 If the judges aren’t buying it… what happens next?
Source: Second Circuit pic.twitter.com/bkPEXFYP1Y
— Docket Smoke (@docketsmoke) April 9, 2026
The discussion largely focused on whether Subramanian considered evidence of fraud and coercion that the jury rejected when acquitting Combs of the most serious charges, ABC News reported.
Federal prosecutors argued that if staged s-xual conduct were protected as expression, commercial establishments offering paid adult encounters could also attempt to claim First Amendment protection.
Because the hearing ended without a ruling, Circuit Judge William J Nardini called it an “exceptionally difficult case” that raised questions of first impression “not only for this court but for any federal court in the country.”
Combs’ lawyer, Alexandra Shapiro, on the other hand, asked the panel for a speedy decision.
