On June 27, 2025, U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone in Philadelphia rejected President Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed by the Exonerated Five, formerly known as the Central Park Five, marking another setback for Trump’s legal efforts. The lawsuit, filed by Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron McCray, and Korey Wise, accuses Trump of making false and defamatory statements during a September 10, 2024, presidential debate with Vice President Kamala Harris. The Judge rejects Trump’s bid to toss Central Park Five lawsuit ruling allows the case to proceed toward discovery and trial, intensifying one of the few remaining legal battles following Trump back to the White House. Here’s a detailed look at the decision, its context, and its implications.
The Lawsuit and Trump’s Statements
The Exonerated Five sued Trump in October 2024, alleging he defamed them by falsely claiming during the debate that they “pled guilty” to the 1989 rape and assault of a jogger in New York’s Central Park and that they “killed a person, ultimately.” These statements, made before an estimated 67 million viewers, were “demonstrably false,” per the lawsuit, as the men never pleaded guilty, consistently maintained their innocence, and no one died in the attack. The plaintiffs, who were teenagers at the time and served 6 to 13 years in prison, were exonerated in 2002 after DNA evidence and a confession from Matias Reyes proved their innocence. They later received a $41 million settlement from New York City in 2014.
Trump’s remarks were in response to Harris criticizing his 1989 full-page New York Times ad calling for the death penalty’s reinstatement, which referenced the case without naming the men. The lawsuit claims Trump’s debate comments caused “severe emotional distress and reputational damage,” seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. Lead attorney Shanin Specter told AP News, “Trump defamed them in front of 67 million people, which has caused them to seek to clear their names all over again.”
The Court’s Ruling
Judge Beetlestone’s 13-page ruling on June 27, 2025, denied Trump’s motion to dismiss under Pennsylvania’s Anti-SLAPP law, which protects defendants from lawsuits targeting free speech on public matters. She ruled that the state law does not apply in federal court, stating, “The only issue before the Court is whether Plaintiffs’ claims for defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) can survive given Pennsylvania’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act… [It] does not apply here.” This follows her April 2025 rejection of Trump’s earlier dismissal attempt, where she found the men presented sufficient evidence to proceed, though she dismissed their IIED claim for lacking evidence of physical harm.
Beetlestone refuted Trump’s arguments that his statements were protected opinions or “substantially true.” She noted that Trump’s claims—that the men pleaded guilty, badly hurt someone, and killed someone—were objectively false, as they pleaded not guilty, and no deaths occurred. She distinguished confessions under police duress, which four of the men recanted, from formal guilty pleas, undermining Trump’s defense.
Trump’s Defense and Public Reaction
Trump’s attorney, Karin Sweigart, called the lawsuit a “meritless attack” and the April dismissal of the IIED claim a “victory,” vowing to protect Trump’s First Amendment rights. She argued Trump’s statements reflected his 1989 perspective when the men confessed and were protected under Pennsylvania’s laws for public concern speech. The Trump campaign labeled the suit a “frivolous election interference lawsuit” by “desperate left-wing activists,” per Reuters.
Public sentiment on X is divided. @ZoeTillman noted the ruling as a rare ongoing legal fight for Trump, while @VigilantFox and @ABC highlighted its significance. Critics like @RossKneeDeep condemned Trump’s refusal to retract, saying, “He’s showing you exactly who he is.” Supporters argue the lawsuit is politically motivated, echoing Trump’s claim of election interference.
Context and Broader Implications
The Exonerated Five’s case is one of several defamation suits against Trump, following E. Jean Carroll’s $83.3 million and $5 million verdicts for sexual assault and defamation. The men’s exoneration, dramatized in Ava DuVernay’s When They See Us, and Yusef Salaam’s role as a New York City Council member amplify the case’s visibility. Harris and Al Sharpton’s references to Trump’s 1989 ad during the 2024 campaign, including at the Democratic National Convention, kept the issue in the spotlight.
What This Means for Readers
The Judge rejects Trump’s bid to toss Central Park Five lawsuit ruling ensures the Exonerated Five can pursue justice for Trump’s false debate claims, potentially leading to a high-stakes trial. For the plaintiffs, it’s a chance to clear their names again, as Specter emphasized their “ultimate vindication.” For Trump, it’s a lingering legal challenge amid his presidency, with posts on X like @MSNBC’s noting its impact. Readers should watch for discovery phase developments, as the case tests the limits of free speech versus defamation in political discourse. It underscores broader issues of accountability, justice, and the lasting harm of false narratives, particularly for marginalized communities.
Word Count: 600
Sources: AP News, Reuters, NBC News, MSNBC, CBS News, The Washington Post, Al Jazeera, X posts
