A federal judge in Pennsylvania has hit pause on the defamation lawsuit brought by the so-called Central Park Five against President Donald Trump.
The case is on hold while the court decides whether Trump’s presidential immunity claim has enough legal weight — or at least isn’t “frivolous” — to warrant further consideration.
Trump’s attorneys appealed U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone’s decision not to dismiss the suit. Their argument: Trump’s comments during a 2024 presidential debate should be protected under presidential immunity — either absolute or statutory.
Beetlestone rejected that argument, saying Pennsylvania’s anti-SLAPP law doesn’t apply in federal court. She allowed most of the case to move forward.
In response, the five plaintiffs — Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron McCray, and Korey Wise — urged the court not to delay. They called the immunity appeal “meritless” and argued that time could weaken their case, citing Trump’s age and the risk his memory could fade in the coming years.
As Law & Crime reports, the five men — who were exonerated years ago — sued Trump after he said during the debate that they had “pleaded guilty” and “killed someone.” Neither statement is true:
In 1989, the then-teenagers were wrongfully accused of raping Trisha Meili as she jogged in Central Park in New York City. The five were also accused of attacking two men that same night.
“While in police custody, Plaintiffs were each separately subjected to hours of coercive interrogation, under duress, with no attorney present and often without a parent or guardian present,” the lawsuit recounted. “Plaintiffs all initially denied having any knowledge of the Central Park assaults. However, after hours of interrogation, four of the Plaintiffs agreed to provide written and videotaped statements in which they falsely admitted to having been present during the assaults.”
The Central Park Five faced trials, maintained their innocence, were convicted by juries in 1990 and were sent to prison, only to be exonerated decades later after the real attacker, Matias Reyes, admitted to the crime against Meili and DNA “conclusively” proved that Reyes was the “true perpetrator,” court documents said.
Notably, the five did not plead guilty and were not accused of killing anyone — yet, during a nationally televised presidential debate with Harris in Pennsylvania in September, Trump said: “They admitted – they said, they pled guilty. And I said, well, if they pled guilty they badly hurt a person, killed a person ultimately.”
Beetlestone ruled Trump’s remarks could be “objectively determined to be false,” which means they can be treated as factual claims — not just opinion. That opens the door for the case to proceed under defamation and “false light” claims.
However, the judge dismissed one part of the lawsuit, throwing out the plaintiffs’ claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Trump’s team is now appealing the immunity issue and asked for a stay in the proceedings. The plaintiffs objected, calling the delay prejudicial.
For now, the lawsuit remains frozen. The next step hinges on whether the court finds Trump’s immunity appeal legitimate enough to delay litigation while that question gets sorted out.
What Could Happen Next
Here are the main scenarios for the next phase:
| Path | What Happens | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Appeal allowed & immunity upheld | The appellate court agrees Trump’s claim isn’t frivolous and grants immunity. | Case ends in Trump’s favor — plaintiffs can’t refile. |
| Appeal allowed but immunity denied | The court hears arguments but finds no immunity applies. | Case returns to trial court for discovery & trial prep. |
| Appeal dismissed as frivolous | The court sides with plaintiffs that the claim lacks merit. | Stay is lifted; trial court proceedings resume immediately. |
| Partial immunity recognized | Court narrows immunity scope — possibly removing some statements from the suit but letting others proceed. | Mixed outcome; case continues but with trimmed claims. |
Timing Note: Even a “frivolous” finding could take months, as appellate courts move slowly — meaning the stay might last deep into 2026.
Key Takeaways
- Trump’s team is testing the limits of presidential and statutory immunity in a way that could set precedent for how campaign speech is treated in defamation law.
- The plaintiffs see delay as a strategic defense — stretching the process until memories fade or political conditions shift.
- The ultimate ruling on immunity will likely shape not just this case, but future lawsuits against public figures for campaign statements.
READ NEXT: This Leftist Move May Seem Smart — But Conservatives Must Reject It Immediately
