Judge Sides Against Trump in Lawsuit

In a significant legal setback for President Trump, a federal judge has allowed a defamation lawsuit filed by the Central Park Five to proceed, rejecting the president’s motion to dismiss the case that stems from statements made during a 2024 presidential debate.

Key Takeaways

A federal judge in Pennsylvania denied President Trump’s request to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed by members of the exonerated 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 court dismissed claims of severe emotional distress but allowed the core defamation claim to proceed.
The Central Park Five were exonerated in 2002 after DNA evidence implicated another man in the 1989 rape case.

Judge Rejects Trump’s Motion to Dismiss

Federal Judge Wendy Beetlestone has dealt a legal blow to President Trump by refusing 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. In her ruling, Judge Beetlestone determined that Trump’s comments could be objectively proven false and must be interpreted as factual statements rather than mere opinions, allowing the defamation claim to move forward despite dismissing other aspects of the case.

The Central Park Five – Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron McCray, and Korey Wise – were wrongfully convicted of a 1989 rape in New York’s Central Park. Their case gained renewed attention during the presidential debate when Harris criticized Trump for a full-page advertisement he placed in The New York Times in 1989 calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty in response to the attack. The men were exonerated in 2002 after DNA evidence identified another perpetrator, but Trump has repeatedly insisted on their guilt.

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

During the debate, Harris referenced Trump’s 1989 advertisement, stating he called for “the execution of five young Black and Latino boys who were innocent, the Central Park Five.” Trump responded by defending his past position, claiming: “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 that these statements were demonstrably false, as they never pleaded guilty to murder and the victim did not die.

“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.

Judge Beetlestone specifically noted that Trump’s statements could be interpreted as defamatory since they falsely suggested that the men had admitted guilt and that their actions resulted in someone’s death – neither of which is true. The five men were teenagers when they were convicted based on confessions that they later said were coerced through psychological pressure and deception during lengthy police interrogations. All five spent between 6 and 13 years in prison before being exonerated.

Trump’s Legal Team Defends Freedom of Speech

President Trump’s attorney, Karin Sweigart, has vigorously defended Trump’s right to express his opinions on the case, characterizing the lawsuit as an attack on constitutionally protected speech. The legal team has pointed to Pennsylvania’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law, which is designed to protect free expression from lawsuits that might chill public discourse. While the judge dismissed claims related to emotional distress and reputational damage, the core defamation claim was allowed to proceed.

“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 public figures’ right to express opinions and the legal protections against false statements that harm others’ reputations. Since their exoneration, members of the Central Park Five have become advocates for criminal justice reform, with one member, Yusef Salaam, even winning election to the New York City Council. As the lawsuit moves forward, it will examine the boundaries between political speech and defamatory statements while revisiting a case that has remained a lightning rod in American discussions about race, justice, and the criminal legal system.