Trump’s Defense Stumbles in Defamation Lawsuit

President Trump’s efforts to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed by the Central Park Five hit a roadblock as a federal judge ruled the case can proceed, focusing on statements made during a 2024 presidential debate.

Quick Takes

A Pennsylvania federal judge denied President Trump’s motion to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed by the Central Park Five
The lawsuit stems from statements Trump made during a 2024 debate with then-Vice President Kamala Harris
Judge Wendy Beetlestone ruled Trump’s statements could be objectively determined as false, not opinion
The Central Park Five were exonerated in 2002 after being wrongfully convicted in a 1989 assault case
The case will proceed focusing solely on defamation claims, with emotional distress claims dismissed

Judge Allows Central Park Five Lawsuit to Proceed

President Trump faced a setback in his legal battles as Federal Judge Wendy Beetlestone denied his request to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed by members of the Central Park Five. The lawsuit centers on statements Trump made during a 2024 presidential debate with then-Vice President Kamala Harris. The men, who were wrongfully convicted of a 1989 assault in New York’s Central Park before being exonerated in 2002, claim Trump’s debate comments were false and damaging to their reputations. Judge Beetlestone’s ruling allows the plaintiffs to amend their complaint and continue pursuing their case against the President.

The Central Park Five—Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron McCray, and Korey Wise—were teenagers when they were wrongfully convicted. Their case gained renewed attention during the debate when Harris referenced Trump’s actions in 1989, when he took out a full-page newspaper ad calling for the death penalty for the accused. The judge’s decision hinged on the determination that Trump’s statements could be objectively proven false and must be interpreted as assertions of fact rather than opinion, a crucial distinction in defamation law.

A federal judge denied President Donald Trump’s request to dismiss a lawsuit over comments he made last year about five men who were wrongly convicted in the 1989 jogger rape case and came to be known as the “Central Park Five.” https://t.co/MDo1u1a3PM

— Bloomberg Law (@BLaw) April 11, 2025

Controversial Debate Statements at Center of Lawsuit

The lawsuit specifically addresses Trump’s response to Harris during their debate exchange. When Harris mentioned “a full-page ad in The New York Times calling for the execution of five young Black and Latino boys who were innocent, the Central Park Five,” Trump responded by defending his past position. In his debate remarks, Trump stated that the men had initially pled guilty before changing their pleas, and suggested they were responsible for severe harm to a victim who “ultimately” died—statements the plaintiffs contend are demonstrably false.

“This is the most divisive presidency in the history of our country. There’s never been anything like it. They’re destroying our country. And they come up with things like what she just said going back many, many years when a lot of people including Mayor Bloomberg agreed with me on the Central Park Five. They admitted — they said, they pled guilty. And I said, well, if they pled guilty they badly hurt a person, killed a person ultimately. And if they pled guilty—then they pled we’re not guilty. But this is a person that has to stretch back years, 40, 50 years ago because there’s nothing now,” said Donald Trump.

The plaintiffs argue Trump made multiple false assertions: they maintain they never pled guilty, were coerced into confessions, and the victim of the attack survived and has recovered. The judge’s ruling focused on whether these statements could constitute defamation under Pennsylvania law, determining that Trump’s claims were presented as factual assertions rather than protected opinion. While the court dismissed claims of severe emotional distress and reputation damage, the core defamation claim will proceed.

Legal Teams Respond to Court Decision

President Trump’s legal representation has forcefully pushed back against the lawsuit, characterizing it as politically motivated and an assault on free speech protections. His attorney, Karin Sweigart, emphasized that while they consider the partial dismissal of claims a victory, they had sought a complete dismissal of the case. The legal team plans to continue defending the President’s First Amendment rights as the case moves forward in Pennsylvania federal court.

“This baseless lawsuit is yet another unfounded and meritless attack against President Trump. It exemplifies the very kind of meritless legal action Pennsylvania’s anti-SLAPP law aims to prevent — shielding free speech from politically motivated abuse. The court’s dismissal of several claims is a victory. We firmly believe the entire case should have been dismissed and will continue fighting to protect the First Amendment rights of not just the President, but all Americans,” said Karin Sweigart.

The case highlights the ongoing tension between freedom of speech protections and the legal remedies available to those who claim they’ve been defamed. As the lawsuit proceeds, legal experts note it will examine whether political figures like President Trump can be held liable for statements made during campaign events and debates. The Central Park Five, who received a $41 million settlement from New York City in 2014 for their wrongful convictions, have since become involved in public service and civil rights advocacy, with some members now serving in elected office.