Court Ruling Hits Trump in Defamation Battle

President Donald Trump faces a legal setback as a federal judge allows the Central Park Five’s defamation lawsuit to proceed, rejecting his motion to dismiss the case stemming from controversial debate statements.

Key Insights

A Pennsylvania federal judge denied President Trump’s attempt to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed by members of the Central Park Five.
The lawsuit stems from statements Trump made during a 2024 presidential debate with then-Vice President Kamala Harris.
Judge Wendy Beetlestone ruled that Trump’s statements could be objectively determined as false and must be construed as fact, not opinion.
The Central Park Five were exonerated in 2002 after DNA evidence implicated another man in the 1989 case.

Judge Allows Defamation Case to Move Forward

President Donald Trump faces a new legal challenge after U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone in Pennsylvania rejected his motion to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed by members of the Central Park Five. The lawsuit stems from statements Trump made during a presidential debate with then-Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024. Judge Beetlestone determined that Trump’s comments about the men, who were wrongfully convicted of a 1989 assault, could potentially be considered defamatory and allowed the case to proceed to trial.

The ruling represents a significant development in the ongoing legal matters facing the president. While the judge dismissed claims related to severe emotional distress and reputation damage, she specifically allowed the defamation claim to move forward. The decision means Trump will need to defend his statements in court, where the plaintiffs will attempt to prove that his comments were false and damaging to their reputations.

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

The Disputed Presidential Debate Statements

The lawsuit centers on an exchange during a presidential debate where Harris criticized Trump for a full-page ad he took out in 1989 calling for capital punishment in response to violent crimes like the one the Central Park Five were accused of. When confronted about this during the debate, Trump defended his past position by making statements that the plaintiffs claim were false and defamatory regarding their case and conviction.

Harris criticized Trump for taking out, “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.”

In response to Harris’s criticism, Trump stated: “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.” The plaintiffs argue these statements were demonstrably false, as they never pleaded guilty to murder, the victim did not die, and they were ultimately exonerated when another person’s DNA was matched to the crime scene evidence in 2002.

Legal Arguments and Implications

Judge Beetlestone’s ruling hinged on the determination that Trump’s statements could be objectively verified as true or false, rather than being protected opinion. The court found that his comments about the men pleading guilty to killing someone could be proven false, as the assault victim survived and the men were exonerated. This distinction was crucial in allowing the defamation claim to proceed while dismissing other parts of the lawsuit.

“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” Karin Sweigart said.

Trump’s legal team, led by attorney Karin Sweigart, has framed the lawsuit as an attack on free speech, arguing that the case should have been dismissed entirely under Pennsylvania’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law. Sweigart characterized the partial dismissal as a victory while vowing to continue defending the president’s First Amendment rights. The case will now focus solely on the defamation aspect rather than claims related to emotional or reputational damages initially sought by the plaintiffs.

Historical Context of the Case

The Central Park Five—Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron McCray, and Korey Wise—were teenagers when convicted of attacking a female jogger in New York’s Central Park in 1989. The case attracted national attention and inflamed racial tensions across the country. Trump, then a prominent New York businessman, took out a full-page newspaper advertisement calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty in response to the attack, though he did not specifically name the defendants in his ad.

In 2002, all five men were fully exonerated after DNA evidence linked another man, Matias Reyes, to the crime. Reyes confessed to the attack and his DNA matched evidence from the scene. The city of New York eventually settled a civil rights lawsuit with the wrongfully convicted men for $41 million in 2014. Despite their exoneration and the settlement, Trump has maintained his position on the case over the years, including during his 2016 presidential campaign.