Federal Judge Allows Defamation Lawsuit Against Donald Trump by Exonerated Central Park Five to Proceed

Central Park Five-Lawsuit

A federal judge has denied former President Donald Trump's request to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed against him by the five men previously known as the Central Park Five. The plaintiffs — Yusef Salaam, Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Raymond Santana, and Korey Wise — were exonerated after spending more than a decade in prison for the 1989 rape and assault of a woman in New York’s Central Park.

U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone, based in Philadelphia, issued a brief order Thursday night rejecting Trump’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The legal action was initiated during the previous presidential election campaign, following comments Trump made during a September 10 debate in Philadelphia with then-Vice President Kamala Harris.

During the debate, Trump made multiple misstatements about the case. In response to Harris referencing the Central Park Five, Trump said, “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.’” In reality, none of the five men pleaded guilty; all were convicted after jury trials, and no victim died in the incident.

The men’s attorney, Shanin Specter, expressed satisfaction with the judge’s decision, stating that his clients are "gratified by the Court’s ruling and thorough analysis and look forward to discovery, trial and the ultimate vindication of these five fine men." The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, alleging that Trump knowingly made false and defamatory statements with the intent to cause severe emotional distress.

Although the judge allowed the defamation case to move forward, she dismissed the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Trump's attorney, Karin Sweigart, responded to the ruling by calling the lawsuit an “unfounded and meritless attack” and pointed to the dismissal of certain claims as a partial victory. She pledged to continue defending Trump, citing the importance of protecting First Amendment rights.

In the original request for dismissal, Trump’s legal team argued that his statements were protected by Pennsylvania laws that offer civil immunity for comments made on matters of public concern. They also asserted that the remarks were “substantially true,” and that Trump did not deny the men’s eventual exoneration but was referencing his mindset in 1989, when he took out a full-page newspaper ad calling for the death penalty’s reinstatement.

At the time of the ad, which appeared shortly after the men confessed under what they later described as duress, it was widely interpreted as advocating for the teenagers’ execution. The men, who are Black and Latino, later recanted their confessions and pleaded not guilty. Despite their convictions, the case was overturned in 2002 after another individual confessed to the crime and DNA evidence confirmed his involvement.

When the suit was filed, the plaintiffs’ legal team emphasized the scale of the alleged harm, noting that Trump’s statements were made in front of approximately 67 million viewers, and that the five men were once again forced to defend their innocence in the public eye.

A spokesperson from Trump’s campaign dismissed the suit at the time as a “frivolous election interference lawsuit.”