The Central Park Five are urging a federal judge in Pennsylvania to allow their defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump to proceed, challenging his attempts to dismiss the case. The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s remarks during the 2024 presidential debate were the latest in a long history of defamatory statements against them, a campaign of harassment that began shortly after their wrongful arrests in 1989. The case centers on Trump’s false claims that the five men, who were exonerated after being wrongfully convicted of assaulting a jogger in Central Park, had “pled guilty” to the crime and had “killed a person.”
In a court filing, the plaintiffs assert that Trump’s defamatory rhetoric is not protected by the First Amendment as he contends. Trump’s defense, which attempts to reframe his comments as “opinion” or “hyperbole,” is rejected by the plaintiffs, who emphasize that his statements about them being guilty of a crime are verifiably false. They point out that none of the five men pled guilty to the crime, and none of the victims died as a result of the assaults, a fact that Trump’s statements ignored.
The lawsuit highlights Trump’s long-standing campaign against the Central Park Five, which began just days after their arrests. In 1989, he took out a full-page ad in five New York City newspapers calling for the execution of the young men, even though they had not been convicted of the crime. In the years since, Trump has continued to publicly target the men with false claims, including during the 2024 presidential debate, where he told millions of viewers that the plaintiffs had “pled guilty” and “killed a person.” The plaintiffs argue that these statements are demonstrably false and continue to harm their reputations.
Trump’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit is based on the argument that his comments were related to matters of public concern, such as crime and punishment, and thus should be protected as free speech. He also claims that his statements about the plaintiffs were “substantially true,” asserting that the distinction between pleading guilty and admitting guilt is a minor technicality. However, the plaintiffs counter that this argument is unconvincing, as none of them ever pled guilty to any crime, and their exoneration proves that Trump’s claims were false.
The plaintiffs also reject Trump’s assertion that his statements should be treated as opinions, pointing out that whether someone “pled guilty” to a crime is a factual matter that can be proven true or false. They further argue that Trump’s attempt to justify his comments by saying “a lot of people, including Mayor Bloomberg, agreed with me” does not make his statements non-defamatory. The plaintiffs argue that defamation law does not allow a defendant to escape liability simply because others may share their views.
In addition, the plaintiffs point to a recent filing in Trump’s defamation lawsuit against ABC News and George Stephanopoulos, in which Trump accused the network of defaming him by referring to him as “liable for rape.” In that case, Trump argued that the issue of whether the statements were defamatory should be determined by a jury, not dismissed at the motion stage. The plaintiffs use this argument against him, noting that the question of whether Trump’s statements about them were defamatory should similarly be decided by a jury.
The Central Park Five’s legal team insists that Trump’s defamatory statements were harmful and that the case should proceed to trial. They argue that the court should not dismiss the case before considering the full context of Trump’s statements and their impact on the plaintiffs’ lives. The plaintiffs’ legal team has emphasized that the statements made by Trump were not just a matter of political disagreement or opinion, but false, harmful assertions that have caused lasting damage to their reputations.
As the case moves forward, the plaintiffs hope to hold Trump accountable for what they describe as a decades-long campaign of harassment, defamation, and false accusations. The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for defamation law, particularly in cases involving public figures and the limits of free speech.
