A federal judge in Pennsylvania has ruled that a defamation lawsuit filed by members of the Central Park Five against President Donald Trump can move forward. The lawsuit stems from false claims Trump made during a 2020 presidential debate, where he accused the exonerated men of pleading guilty to a horrific attack and being responsible for a death.
Background of the Defamation Lawsuit
The Central Park Five—Antron McCray, Korey Wise, Kevin Richardson, Raymond Santana, and Yusef Salaam—were wrongfully convicted in the 1989 assault and rape of a female jogger in New York City’s Central Park.
After years of legal battles, their convictions were vacated, and they were exonerated when another man, Matias Reyes, confessed to the crime. Despite this, Trump had made repeated public statements suggesting that the men had confessed to the crime and were guilty of the attack.
During the 2020 presidential debate with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump stated that the Central Park Five “pled guilty” to the crime and “ultimately killed a person.” This led to the defamation lawsuit, with the plaintiffs alleging that Trump’s remarks were not only false but also damaging to their reputations.
Judge’s Decision
U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled on March 29, 2025, denying Trump’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In her decision, Beetlestone explained that the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to proceed with their defamation claims. Trump’s argument that his comments were merely opinions or rhetorical hyperbole did not hold up in court.
Judge Beetlestone rejected Trump’s claim that his comments were non-defamatory, stating, “Defendant’s assertions — that Plaintiffs pleaded guilty and that Plaintiffs killed someone — can be ‘objectively determined’ to be false.” She also emphasized that none of the Central Park Five had pleaded guilty to the crime, and none of them were charged with killing anyone.
The judge also referenced previous legal cases, including the Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit against Trump’s former attorney Sidney Powell, to bolster her point that false statements made in a political context are still not immune from legal action.
Dismissal of Emotional Distress Claim
While the judge allowed the defamation case to proceed, she dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiffs were unable to show that they suffered physical harm as a result of Trump’s comments. However, Judge Beetlestone granted them leave to amend the complaint if they wished to provide further evidence to support that claim.
Implications of the Ruling
This decision marks a significant step in the legal battle over Trump’s statements about the Central Park Five. The judge’s ruling suggests that defamation claims made by public figures, even in a political context, are not automatically shielded by the First Amendment if the statements are provably false.
The lawsuit will now continue, and the Central Park Five members will have the opportunity to present their case in court, challenging the false and harmful claims made by Trump.