The Central Park Five have urged a federal judge in Pennsylvania to reject an effort by several media organizations, trade associations, and the ACLU to file an amicus brief in their defamation lawsuit against President-elect Donald Trump. The plaintiffs argue that the motion is an attempt to bully victims of wrongful conduct and to advance the business interests of the organizations involved.
The lawsuit stems from statements Trump made during the 2024 presidential debate with Kamala Harris, where he falsely claimed that the five men had “pled guilty” to a brutal crime and “ultimately killed a person.” The Central Park Five, who were wrongfully convicted and coerced into confessions, have consistently maintained their innocence. They were exonerated after the true perpetrator confessed, and no one died as a result of the attack.
The coalition of organizations seeking to file the amicus brief includes the ACLU of Pennsylvania, Americans for Prosperity Pennsylvania, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and others. They argued that the court should apply the state’s anti-SLAPP statute, which protects defendants from frivolous lawsuits. However, the Central Park Five’s attorneys argue that the coalition’s participation would be unhelpful and unnecessary, as the issue at hand is not about the application of anti-SLAPP protections but about the accuracy of Trump’s statements.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys argue that Trump’s remarks were demonstrably false. The Central Park Five never pled guilty to the crime, and the victim, Patricia Meili, survived the assault. In response, Trump has claimed that his statements were “substantially true,” arguing that the initial coerced confessions from the men could be viewed as equivalent to a guilty plea. He also suggested that the victim was “virtually dead” after the attack, though she survived and was not in a coma.
Trump’s defense also hinges on the argument that his comments, despite being false, would have had the same impact on the average listener as if they were true. His legal team asserts that the comparison between the actual facts and his statements would not have led to a different effect on the public’s perception of the case.
The case continues to raise important questions about the balance between free speech and the protection of individuals from defamatory statements, especially when those statements are false and harmful to the reputation of the wrongfully accused. The court will ultimately decide whether to allow the ACLU and other organizations to weigh in on the case, but for now, the Central Park Five’s legal team is fighting to keep their focus on the accuracy of Trump’s statements rather than broader legal arguments related to defamation law.