Blab Music
Judge Dismisses Kennedy Centers $1 Million Lawsuit Against Jazz Drummer Chuck Redd
A Washington, D.C., judge on June 6, 2026 dismissed a breach‑of‑contract lawsuit filed by the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts against jazz drummer and vibraphonist Chuck Redd. The case was thrown out with prejudice after the court applied the city’s anti‑SLAPP statutes, which protect defendants from meritless lawsuits that are intended to silence criticism.
Redd, who has hosted the annual Christmas Eve Jazz Jam at the Kennedy Center since 2006, cancelled the 2025 event after the Trump administration announced that the venue’s name would be changed to include former President Donald Trump’s name. The name change, which was later reversed by a district judge, prompted Redd to withdraw the concert. In response, Kennedy Center president Richard Grenell threatened a $1 million lawsuit, citing the cancellation as a breach of contract.
According to the Associated Press, Redd’s lawyers filed a motion for dismissal in March. The judge, a Biden appointee, agreed, citing Washington, D.C.’s anti‑SLAPP laws that shield defendants from politically motivated suits. In a statement, Lisa J. Banks, one of Redd’s attorneys, said the lawsuit was “political retribution” and that the court correctly recognized it as such.
The Kennedy Center’s legal action was framed as a contract dispute: the venue had allegedly breached its agreement with Redd by threatening to sue him for the cancellation. The center’s claim was that Redd’s public objection to the name change constituted a “classic intolerance” that was costly to a non‑profit arts institution.
The dismissal was significant because it underscored the limits of the Kennedy Center’s authority to rename the venue. The center was established by the National Cultural Center Act of 1958 as a living memorial to President John Kennedy, and federal law requires that its name remain unchanged unless Congress authorizes a change. The Trump administration’s attempt to add Trump’s name was later deemed illegal by a federal judge.
Redd expressed relief at the ruling. “I was very pleased with the judge’s ruling,” he told the Associated Press. The decision also removed a potential $1 million liability from the musician’s side and affirmed that the lawsuit was not based on a legitimate contractual claim.
The case illustrates the broader use of anti‑SLAPP statutes in Washington, D.C., where the city’s laws are designed to protect free speech and public participation. The statutes allow defendants to file a motion to dismiss a lawsuit that is deemed an attempt to silence criticism. If the court finds the suit to be a SLAPP, it can dismiss the case and award attorney’s fees to the defendant.
The Kennedy Center’s lawsuit was one of several legal actions taken during the Trump administration’s tenure. In 2025, the administration replaced the center’s trustees and appointed Trump as chairman, leading to a wave of cancellations and a decline in ticket sales. The center’s planned closure for renovations in July 2026 was later blocked by a federal judge.
The dismissal of the lawsuit against Redd may influence future disputes between performers and venues over political statements. While the Kennedy Center has not issued a formal response to the ruling, the case remains a reminder that contractual claims must be grounded in clear, enforceable agreements.
As of now, Redd has not announced a replacement event for the 2025 holiday concert. The Kennedy Center continues to host a variety of performances, but its programming schedule remains in flux following the legal and administrative challenges of the past year.
The outcome of the case also highlights the role of anti‑SLAPP laws in protecting artists from litigation that could be used to suppress dissent. The court’s decision to dismiss the suit with prejudice signals that Washington, D.C., will continue to enforce these protections in future cases involving public criticism of institutions.
The Kennedy Center’s legal team has not yet released a statement on the dismissal. The center’s board is expected to review its policies regarding name changes and contractual agreements with performers in the wake of the ruling.
Redd, who has hosted the annual Christmas Eve Jazz Jam at the Kennedy Center since 2006, cancelled the 2025 event after the Trump administration announced that the venue’s name would be changed to include former President Donald Trump’s name. The name change, which was later reversed by a district judge, prompted Redd to withdraw the concert. In response, Kennedy Center president Richard Grenell threatened a $1 million lawsuit, citing the cancellation as a breach of contract.
According to the Associated Press, Redd’s lawyers filed a motion for dismissal in March. The judge, a Biden appointee, agreed, citing Washington, D.C.’s anti‑SLAPP laws that shield defendants from politically motivated suits. In a statement, Lisa J. Banks, one of Redd’s attorneys, said the lawsuit was “political retribution” and that the court correctly recognized it as such.
The Kennedy Center’s legal action was framed as a contract dispute: the venue had allegedly breached its agreement with Redd by threatening to sue him for the cancellation. The center’s claim was that Redd’s public objection to the name change constituted a “classic intolerance” that was costly to a non‑profit arts institution.
The dismissal was significant because it underscored the limits of the Kennedy Center’s authority to rename the venue. The center was established by the National Cultural Center Act of 1958 as a living memorial to President John Kennedy, and federal law requires that its name remain unchanged unless Congress authorizes a change. The Trump administration’s attempt to add Trump’s name was later deemed illegal by a federal judge.
Redd expressed relief at the ruling. “I was very pleased with the judge’s ruling,” he told the Associated Press. The decision also removed a potential $1 million liability from the musician’s side and affirmed that the lawsuit was not based on a legitimate contractual claim.
The case illustrates the broader use of anti‑SLAPP statutes in Washington, D.C., where the city’s laws are designed to protect free speech and public participation. The statutes allow defendants to file a motion to dismiss a lawsuit that is deemed an attempt to silence criticism. If the court finds the suit to be a SLAPP, it can dismiss the case and award attorney’s fees to the defendant.
The Kennedy Center’s lawsuit was one of several legal actions taken during the Trump administration’s tenure. In 2025, the administration replaced the center’s trustees and appointed Trump as chairman, leading to a wave of cancellations and a decline in ticket sales. The center’s planned closure for renovations in July 2026 was later blocked by a federal judge.
The dismissal of the lawsuit against Redd may influence future disputes between performers and venues over political statements. While the Kennedy Center has not issued a formal response to the ruling, the case remains a reminder that contractual claims must be grounded in clear, enforceable agreements.
As of now, Redd has not announced a replacement event for the 2025 holiday concert. The Kennedy Center continues to host a variety of performances, but its programming schedule remains in flux following the legal and administrative challenges of the past year.
The outcome of the case also highlights the role of anti‑SLAPP laws in protecting artists from litigation that could be used to suppress dissent. The court’s decision to dismiss the suit with prejudice signals that Washington, D.C., will continue to enforce these protections in future cases involving public criticism of institutions.
The Kennedy Center’s legal team has not yet released a statement on the dismissal. The center’s board is expected to review its policies regarding name changes and contractual agreements with performers in the wake of the ruling.
