Macklemore, Robert Kraft, and the First Amendment

Ed Sheeran’s Loop tour kicked off in January of this year in Melbourne, Australia. Consisting of old and new Sheeran hits, the tour has traveled across Eurasia, Europe, and the Americas, and is set to finish in December. Like many stars, Sheeran chose several artists to bring along on tour to open for him. Most notable among Sheeran’s openers was the rapper Macklemore, known for songs such as “Thrift Shop”, “Downtown”, and “Can’t Hold Us”. 

During his opening set at MetLife Stadium in Rutherford, New Jersey, Macklemore expressed his support for Palestine, explicitly stating “Free Palestine” before performing his song “Hind’s Hall”, which he had written about the 2024 protests at Columbia University. Shortly after this performance, Robert Kraft, the owner of Gillette Stadium, informed Ed Sheeran that Macklemore would no longer be allowed to perform at the stadium as his opener, claiming that his words classified as “hate speech” and were “antisemetic”.¹ Macklemore refuted this, stating that his condemnation of the Israeli state was not an attack on Jewish people. Kraft did not budge, and soon after it was announced that Macklemore would be dropped from the tour entirely. The promoter for the show, Messina Touring Group, released a statement saying that they were “[…] notified by venues on the upcoming U.S. tour dates that they will not allow a concert to take place with Macklemore on the lineup […]”.²

Following Macklemore’s removal, all of Sheeran’s other openers and his backing band pulled out of the tour, leaving Sheeran performing the rest of the dates solo.

This reaction by Robert Kraft and other stadium owners brings about the question of free speech, a first amendment right that much of our country has been built upon. In the 1972 case Lloyd Corporation, Ltd. v. Tanner, the court rejected the argument that “property lose[s] its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes.”³ In short, this means that private landowners are not held to the same public obligations as the government just because they own a spot where large groups of people often gather. The exception for this is when a piece of private property functions in all ways but ownership as public property. As the congressional annotation of the Constitution states, “only when private property ‘has taken on all the attributes of a town’ is it to be treated as a public forum.”⁴

Though Gillette and all of the other stadiums act as large gathering places for members of the public, the functions are not akin to that of a public square. Thus, though it seems unfair, Robert Kraft has every right to dictate who performs at his venue and whether or not they can say what they want while performing there. While Macklemore absolutely has the right to say what he wants, Kraft has the same right to not allow that sort of speech in his venue. 

Works Cited:

1. Blistein, Jon. “Robert Kraft Confirms He Barred Macklemore From Ed Sheeran Boston Shows.” Rolling Stone, 14 Sept. 2026, www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/macklemore-dropped-ed-sheeran-tour-robert-kraft-statement-1235626352/.
2. Aswad, Jem, and Zack Sharf. “Ed Sheeran Says Dropping Macklemore From Tour Was ‘Promoter’s Decision, Not Mine,’ Explains Why He’s Not Speaking Out on Israel and Palestine.” Variety, 15 Sept. 2026, variety.com/2026/music/news/ed-sheeran-speaks-out-macklemore-1236861174/.
3. Sisk, Gregory C. “Private Property, Expression on.” Free Speech Center, 1 Jan. 2009, firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/private-property-expression-on/.
4. “Amdt1.7.7.3 Quasi-Public Places.” Constitution Annotated, constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-7-7-3/ALDE_00013544/.