A federal judge has ruled that Donald Trump must face a defamation lawsuit filed by the Central Park Five, who allege he made false statements about them during a 2024 presidential debate.
At a Glance
- Federal Judge Wendy Beetlestone ruled that Trump’s statements about the Central Park Five could be objectively false, allowing the defamation lawsuit to proceed
- Trump claimed the five men pleaded guilty and killed someone, despite their exoneration in 2002
- The case revisits Trump’s 1989 full-page ads calling for the death penalty for the then-teenagers
- Trump’s legal team argues the lawsuit infringes on free speech, while the plaintiffs seek damages for reputational harm
Judge Allows Defamation Lawsuit Against Trump to Proceed
A federal judge has denied former President Donald Trump’s attempt to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed by the Central Park Five, allowing the case to move forward. The lawsuit centers on statements made by Trump during a 2024 presidential debate, where he allegedly claimed the five men had pleaded guilty and killed someone—a claim that contradicts their exoneration in 2002.
Watch Reuters’ report on the legal battle.
Historical Background and Legal Implications
The Central Park Five—Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron McCray, and Korey Wise—were wrongfully convicted in 1989 for the rape of a jogger in New York City’s Central Park. They were exonerated in 2002 after DNA evidence and a confession from the actual perpetrator cleared them of the crime.
During the 2024 debate, Trump’s remarks reignited controversy over his past actions, including a 1989 full-page advertisement in The New York Times calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty in response to the case. The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s recent statements have caused renewed harm to their reputations and emotional well-being.
Legal Arguments and Broader Impact
Trump’s legal team, led by attorney Karin Sweigart, contends that his statements are protected under the First Amendment as expressions of opinion. “This baseless lawsuit is yet another unfounded and meritless attack against President Trump,” Sweigart said, arguing that the suit aims to stifle political speech.
However, Judge Wendy Beetlestone ruled that the statements could be “objectively proven false,” thus not protected by free speech provisions. The decision allows the plaintiffs to amend their complaint and proceed with litigation.
The case has revived national attention not only on Trump’s rhetoric but also on the broader implications of public figures perpetuating misinformation about historically marginalized individuals. It brings renewed focus to the lingering societal consequences of wrongful convictions and the responsibility of leaders to speak truthfully—especially on matters with such profound historical weight.
