Judge Rules That Defamation Lawsuit Against Donald Trump By Exonerated Five Can Move Forward

A federal judge has ruled that a defamation lawsuit against former President Donald Trump, brought by the five Black and Hispanic men known as the Central Park Five, can move forward. The case stems from statements Trump made during the 2024 presidential campaign, which the plaintiffs argue were false and damaging.

In her decision, U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone stated the plaintiffs had provided “enough evidence for now to pursue their lawsuit,” while dismissing their claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The five men — Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron Brown, and Korey Wise — were wrongfully convicted in the 1989 rape of a white jogger and later exonerated in 2002 through new DNA evidence and another man's confession.

The lawsuit, filed in October 2024, accuses Trump of defamation for saying during a debate with Kamala Harris that the men had “killed someone and pleaded guilty.” According to the complaint, “Trump’s demonstrably false statements” portrayed the men “in a harmful false light.” The plaintiffs never pleaded guilty and had their convictions overturned after their confessions were proven to be coerced and false.

Shanin Specter, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, welcomed the judge’s decision, saying, “We look forward to discovery, trial and the ultimate vindication of these five fine men.” Trump’s attorney, Karin Sweigart, countered by calling the lawsuit “baseless” and “yet another unfounded and meritless attack,” but claimed the dismissal of the emotional distress claim as a legal win.

Trump has long been criticized for his role in the Central Park Five - now known as The Exonerated Five . Shortly after the 1989 incident, he infamously took out full-page newspaper ads calling for the death penalty. In this latest ruling, Judge Beetlestone rejected Trump's defense that his remarks were protected opinion under the First Amendment. She wrote that the statement in question “must be construed as one of fact, not opinion,” because whether the men “pleaded guilty or killed someone” can be “objectively determined.”

The White House has declined to comment on the case. The plaintiffs are seeking both monetary and punitive damages for reputational and emotional harm.

Link: Reuters