July 9, 2025

The Diddy Verdict and the Systematic Dismantling of Women’s Rights: How Power Still Protects Predators

The recent acquittal of Sean “Diddy” Combs on sex trafficking charges is not just disturbing, it’s heart wrenching to anyone who believes in justice for survivors. While it may not come as a shock to those familiar with the relentless obstacles women face in speaking out, it is nonetheless a brutal reminder of how deeply the system continues to fail them. As a civil rights attorney, I see how often even the most credible accounts are dismissed, especially when power and wealth are involved. The Diddy verdict doesn’t just close the door on one woman’s fight for justice, it sends a chilling message: that even with overwhelming evidence, women are left fighting uphill battles just to be believed, let alone protected.

Over the last 40 years, landmark legal developments have attempted to institutionalize protections for women in the workplace and beyond. The Supreme Court ruled in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986) that the sexual harassment aligned with the concept of a “hostile work environment,” and therefore, could be a violation of civil rights. Five years later, in Ellison v. Brady, that court embraced the “reasonable woman” standard which was a hallmark advancement in how harassment claims were adjudicated by recognizing the lived experiences of victims. And in 2005, Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education further expanded protections under Title IX, affirming that retaliation for reporting sexual harassment was also unlawful.

One major legislative leap in 2000 was the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”). This law was not only a turning point in human rights law but also women’s rights which are disproportionately impacted by trafficking. The TVPA redefined trafficked individuals as victims of a federal crime, entitled to legal protections, immigration relief, and access to support services. Over time, courts have clarified and expanded its reach. In Roe v. Howard (2017), the court held that a trafficking claim under the TVPA does not require physical force or restraints but rather psychological coercion is independently sufficient. In Canosa v. Ziff Davis, LLC (2020), a civil suit brought against associates of Harvey Weinstein, the court recognized that aiding and abetting sex trafficking may include knowingly facilitating access to victims.

Locally, New York has enacted several survivor-centric reforms. In 2019, the civil statute of limitations (“SOL”) for adult survivors of sexual violence was greatly expanded to 20 years for those alleging second-degree rape and 10 years for third-degree sex crimes. That same year, the Child Victims Act extended the SOL for survivors of childhood sexual abuse to age 55. In New York City, the Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law offers further recourse by allowing claimants to sue individuals and institutions for an extended SOL of 7 to 9 years. These efforts reflect a broader commitment to accountability and access to justice.

While great bounds of progress have been accomplished, remnants of the same bigotry and unjustifiable discrimination still pervade our legal system. One of the most notable examples of how women are dismissed when powerful men are questioned is Anita Hill’s 1991 Senate testimony. Hill, an accomplished attorney and the first Black tenured professor at the University of Oklahoma College of Law, stood before an all-male, all-white committee of 14 senators who unfairly discounted her account of how Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas subjected her to years of sexually charged workplace harassment. Thomas allegedly made repeated advances toward Hill while serving as her supervisor at the Department of Education and later the EEOC. His crude and vulgar behavior exposed deeply unethical tendencies, yet the committee’s implicit bias against women undermined Hill’s attempts to hold him accountable. “It is only after a great deal of agonizing consideration and a great number of sleepless nights that I am able to talk of these unpleasant matters to anyone but my close friends.” Hill recounted the immense psychological burden she faced and acknowledged the courage required to openly disclose these occurrences. Hill’s story was not unique but her willingness to testify on a national platform became a historic catalyst. Her testimony spurred the first federal sexual harassment laws with real enforcement power, inspired a surge of women to run for public office, and sparked a broader cultural shift toward believing women’s experiences. She confessed that when “it appeared that the sexual overtures which had so troubled [her] had ended. [She] also faced the realistic fact that [she] had no alternative job.” As proud as she was to speak her truth, it is almost impossible to defend oneself without professional retaliation. In a society structured around power imbalances, simply saying “no” can trigger high levels of exposure. Speaking out often comes at a cost especially for women who dare to challenge powerful men.

Hill’s testimony was not vague or solitary. She named specific incidents of verbal harassment, described sexually explicit language used by her boss detailing his sexual prowess, and detailed how he repeatedly leveraged his authority to pursue her. At least four witnesses were prepared to corroborate that Hill had told them about Thomas’s behavior years earlier. Still, her account was met with skepticism, if not outright dismissal. Hill was interrogated more intensely than the man she accused by an all-male Senate committee. Her character was questioned, her motives invalidated, and her credibility hung out for public judgment. It was a painful reminder that despite evincing solid evidence, a woman’s recollection is deemed unreliable.

Yet more than thirty years after Anita Hill’s testimony, women still face institutional disbelief. While there have been notable victories such as E. Jean Carroll’s successful defamation and sexual abuse claims against President Donald Trump, the default posture of our legal system and public discourse remains skeptical when women confront powerful men. Carroll endured death threats and was forced into hiding, her credibility relentlessly attacked, and her trauma politicized. Her victory was monumental but not without immense personal cost.

This reflects a society that continues to doubt the legitimacy of women’s suffering especially when their abusers are rich, powerful, and politically connected. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony during Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing is another clear example. She bravely alleged that Kavanaugh assaulted her in high school, describing how he pinned her down, covered her mouth, and made her fear she would suffocate. Like Carroll and Hill, Ford was met not with empathy but with death threats forcing her into seclusion. Her honesty came at a high price, and her credibility was publicly attacked despite the consistency of her account.

The acquittal of music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs on sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy charges has put a spotlight on the hastening reversion of women’s rights in the country. The Diddy verdict undermines decades of hard fought legal and cultural progress in protecting and believing victims of sexual abuse. This reflects a deep reluctance amongst society to believe women’s testimonies especially when power and wealth are at stake. Regardless of who the perpetrator is, this case will potentially have a damning effect on female whistleblowers.

While Combs was convicted on lesser prostitution-related charges and denied bail due to the severity of the abuse against his former romantic partner Casandra Ventura, a.k.a. “Cassie,” the jury’s refusal to convict on the more serious counts has been viewed as a shock to the conscience by many. The prosecutors laid extensive testimony and credible evidence such as violent sexual coercion, physical assault, nonconsensual surveillance, and blatant intimidation. The prosecutors introduced two prominent former partners, Casandra Ventura and an ex referred to as “Jane,” whose candid testimonies offered vivid insight into the alleged “freak-offs.” These were prolonged, drug-fueled sex parties orchestrated and enabled by Combs. Ventura recounted enduring several episodes of physical abuse and nonconsensual sexual encounters. She described events so degrading and traumatic, and even confessed she would return the entire $20 million settlement just to avoid reliving that terror. She emphasized that there was a significant power imbalance due to the drugs victims were forced to consume for energy which left them “so exhausted they took days to recover.” Similar to Hill’s sentiments, these imbalances can force women to choose between their professional development and personal boundaries. “Jane,” the second accuser, detailed how Combs coerced her into similar predicaments, sometimes following abusive incidents or threats of leaked footage. She described controlling behavior: “He threatened to stop paying rent … If I didn’t do it, he would release videos,” she testified. Further testimony came from multiple supporting witnesses. A male stripper detailed witnessing Combs violently attack Ventura in a hotel room, throwing objects and dragging her by the hair. A hotel guard recounted seeing Ventura with a “purple eye” and blocking the door during a 2016 assault, as footage was played to jurors. Adding depth and credibility to this narrative, an exotic dancer known as “Mia” testified that Combs abused her as a personal assistant, compelling her to engage in “hotel nights” of forced demeaning labor and allow herself to be sexually assaulted. Prosecutors attempted to tie these individual stories to a broader criminal scheme that was further substantiated by the evidence from Homeland Security agents who seized corroborative items from his properties including over 25 bottles of baby oil, hundreds of bottles of lubricant, ketamine, MDMA, sedatives, and cash.

Despite graphic footage, multiple compelling witness testimonies, and substantial pieces of evidence, the jury declined to convict on the charges that most directly addressed the exploitation of women’s bodies and autonomy. The rationale behind the decision on the sex trafficking charge is particularly disturbing because there was nominal supporting evidence to indicate any of the victims’ experiences during the “freak offs” were consensual. This defies both the legal standard and the overwhelming evidence presented at trial. Under the law, a trafficking conviction requires three elements: (1) the occurrence of trafficking, such as recruiting or soliciting a person for commercial sex; (2) the means employed, which can include force, fraud, or coercion; and (3) the defendant’s intent or reckless disregard in compelling the victim to engage in commercial sex acts. Prosecutors laid out clear, corroborated evidence on all three fronts. Most notably, jurors were shown surveillance footage of Combs violently assaulting Ventura in 2016, an incident she testified occurred after she tried to leave a “freak off.” This verdict ignores the very definition of coercion and discounts the impact of incapacitating drug use and sustained psychological control. There was no ambiguity here. Furthermore, this acquittal stands as a painful reminder that power and gender bias insulates male perpetrators from taking accountability for their misconduct.

This trend of diminishing women’s rights extends beyond the Diddy verdict. Most notably, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) prompted a deprivation of women’s bodily autonomy by overturning nearly fifty years of precedent under Roe v. Wade. Dobbs marked the beginning of a judicial strategy that continues to chip away at women’s healthcare access and legal recourse, often under the guise of neutral statutory interpretation. Most recently, the Supreme Court decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (2025) struck another blow to reproductive rights and patient protections. The Court ruled that Medicaid patients could not privately sue under 42 U.S.C. §1983 to enforce the “any-qualified-provider” provision of the Medicaid Act. Until now, it was permissible for individuals to seek care from any willing and qualified provider, including reproductive health clinics such as Planned Parenthood. The plaintiffs in Medina argued that this provision clearly granted individual rights. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court justices starkly diverged from this precedent, the Court held that the statute lacked the “clear and unambiguous rights-creating language” necessary to support private enforcement. This decision effectively strips indigent women of one of the few legal tools they had to challenge state-level efforts to exclude Planned Parenthood and other reproductive health providers from Medicaid funding.

This ruling reflects a broader judicial trend of weakening civil rights enforcement through statutory reinterpretation. While not as inflammatory as Dobbs, Medina is perhaps more insidious because it highlights that now even longstanding protections for general reproductive health are no longer immune to misogynistic political agendas.

As documented by legal precedent, women are once again being forced to fight battles they had already won. The legal system, once slowly trending toward justice, is now showing signs of active regression. This regression is not accidental. It is the result of deliberate political influence. President Trump’s judicial appointments to the federal bench and the Supreme Court, have facilitated the erosion of hard-fought gains secured by trailblazers like Anita Hill. If women’s voices were given the same credibility as men’s; if lived trauma and corroborated accounts were not filtered through layers of skepticism and power politics, the Diddy verdict might have reflected a very different outcome.

There is no reason we should still be drawing parallels between Anita Hill’s 1991 testimony and Casandra Ventura’s in 2025. And yet, the similarities are stark: powerful men accused of sexual misconduct, overwhelming evidence, public scrutiny, and a system that refuses to fully believe women, no matter how convincing their assertions.

Women’s rights are not simply being stalled, they are being reversed. Whether through high-profile acquittals like Combs’s, or through legal rulings such as Dobbs and Medina, we are witnessing the methodical unraveling of protections that took generations to secure. This is not the result of overt misogyny alone, but of a well-orchestrated political strategy that cloaks itself in neutrality.

Take Action Now: Stand Up for Women’s Rights:

Speak Out: As Anita Hill once said, “I did what I believed was my duty.” Her testimony echoed beyond the chambers of Congress into the hearts of millions of women who recognized themselves in her story. Today, Casandra Ventura’s courage reminds us that this duty persists. This duty is not limited to advocating for survivors but also rejecting the system that perpetually dismisses them.

Use Your Platform: In a time where laws are quietly stripping away autonomy, visibility and clarity are acts of resistance. Just as Hill’s voice overcame the political gatekeepers in Washington, our collective voices must cut through today’s rhetoric only affording women’s contentions a grain of salt at best. Educate those in your circles on how cases like Dobbs, Medina, and Combs are not isolated incidents but part of a pattern of suppression. Help others see that reproductive rights, bodily autonomy, and legal protections are under threat.

Join the Legal Battle: Groups like the National Women’s Law Center, ACLU Women’s Rights Project, RAINN, and Legal Momentum are on the front lines of this war on women’s rights. This is one of the most accessible ways to support victims of sexual abuse. It is in times like these, volunteers are capable of contributing significant efforts to these initiatives and having a nationwide impact. Follow their legal updates and share them widely because as we have seen particularly exploited in the Combs case, silence only benefits those in power.

Contact Us: If you have experienced gender discrimination, a hostile work environment, or believe you’ve been subjected to sexual harassment, reach out to our office. As an experienced civil litigator, I provide strategic, compassionate representation and will advocate vigorously on your behalf.

Please subscribe to this blog to receive email alerts when new posts go up.

Sources:

The Diddy Verdict and the Systematic Dismantling of Women’s Rights: How Power Still Protects Predators

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Related Posts

Why Providing Your Employees With Discrimination Training Is Not Enough

Is your AI Program Discriminating Against Job Applicants?

Can You Be Terminated By Your Employer For Voicing Your Opinion About The Conflict In Gaza On Social Media?

Categories