Trump Defamation Case: PA Anti-SLAPP & Actual Malice Ruling

By Darius Spearman (africanelements)

Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.

Judge Rejects Trump Dismissal in Central Park Five Defamation Case

The fight for justice continues for the men once known as the Central Park Five, now rightfully called the Exonerated Five. U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone recently dealt a blow to Donald Trump’s efforts to stop their defamation lawsuit. She rejected his motion to dismiss the case. This ruling allows the lawsuit, filed by five Black and Latino men wrongfully convicted in 1989, to move forward (WHYY News; Atlanta Black Star). Judge Beetlestone found Trump’s repeated statements about the case were “objectively false.” Moreover, she indicated these statements could potentially show “actual malice,” a key legal standard in defamation cases involving public figures.

Trump had falsely claimed the men had “pled guilty.” He also stated their actions had “killed a person.” Both claims fly in the face of established facts. Their convictions were vacated, meaning legally erased, back in 2002. Importantly, the victim in the 1989 Central Park jogger case did not die (WHYY News). The judge’s decision underscores that even powerful figures aren’t necessarily shielded from accountability for spreading damaging falsehoods. This legal battle, consequently, highlights the ongoing struggle against misinformation that harms the reputations of exonerated individuals, particularly men of color.

Trump’s History: Ads, False Claims Fuel Defamation Lawsuit

Donald Trump’s involvement with the Central Park Five case dates back to the very beginning. In 1989, shortly after the teenagers’ arrests, he took out inflammatory full-page ads in major New York newspapers. These ads called for the reinstatement of the death penalty in New York State (WHYY News). Many saw this as directly advocating for the execution of the five accused teens, who were minors at the time. This controversial ad resurfaced significantly during the 2024 presidential debate when Kamala Harris highlighted it, reminding the public of Trump’s long-standing stance against the Five (Atlanta Black Star).

The 1989 ad wasn’t an isolated incident. Trump has repeatedly maintained the guilt of the Exonerated Five, even decades after their names were cleared. During his 2016 presidential campaign, he falsely stated the men had “admitted they were guilty” (Atlanta Black Star; CBS News New York). This ignored the coerced nature of their initial confessions, obtained under intense pressure without proper counsel, and the definitive DNA evidence that exonerated them in 2002. His lawyers argued his recent statements were protected speech on a matter of public concern. However, Judge Beetlestone rejected this defense, focusing instead on the demonstrable falsity of his claims (CBS News New York; Los Angeles Times). This pattern of repeating debunked accusations forms the core of the defamation lawsuit. Therefore, the case challenges Trump’s persistent narrative against the Five.

Understanding ‘Actual Malice’ in the Exonerated Five Trump Case

For the Exonerated Five to win their defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump, they face a high legal hurdle. Because Trump is a public figure, they must prove he acted with “actual malice.” This doesn’t mean ill will in the everyday sense. In legal terms, actual malice means Trump either knew his statements were false when he made them, or he acted with reckless disregard for whether they were true or false (Innocence Project). This standard comes from the landmark Supreme Court case *New York Times v. Sullivan*. It aims to protect free speech, especially on matters of public concern, making it harder for public figures to sue for defamation.

Judge Beetlestone’s ruling indicated that the Five’s claims could potentially meet this tough standard. She pointed out that Trump’s statements—that the Five “pled guilty” and “killed a person”—were “objectively false” given their vacated convictions and the fact the victim survived (WHYY News). The Exonerated Five argue Trump continued making these false claims despite widespread knowledge of their exoneration since 2002, which included DNA evidence pointing to the actual perpetrator, Matias Reyes (John D. Rogers Law; Touro Law Digital Commons). Consequently, their lawyers will likely argue this persistence demonstrates, at minimum, a reckless disregard for the truth, fulfilling the actual malice requirement.

Pennsylvania Anti-SLAPP Law: A Partial Shield for Trump?

In defending against the lawsuit, Trump’s legal team invoked Pennsylvania’s anti-SLAPP law. SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. These laws are designed to protect people from frivolous lawsuits intended to silence their free speech on matters of public interest. Essentially, they provide a way to quickly dismiss cases that seem aimed at shutting down discussion rather than seeking genuine redress (CBS News New York; WHYY News). Trump’s lawyers argued his statements about the Exonerated Five fell into this category of protected public discourse.

The anti-SLAPP argument had partial success. Judge Beetlestone did dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, potentially seeing it as falling under the type of claim SLAPP laws aim to curb (CBS News New York; Los Angeles Times). However, the judge crucially found that the anti-SLAPP law did not protect Trump’s statements from the defamation claims. She reasoned that his statements were not “substantially true,” a key consideration under such laws. Because his claims about guilty pleas and a death were demonstrably false, they didn’t qualify for dismissal under the anti-SLAPP statute. Thus, while the law provided some protection, it wasn’t enough to stop the core defamation allegations.

Decades Later: Why the Exonerated Five Fight On

The Exonerated Five – Yusef Salaam, Kevin Richardson, Antron McCray, Raymond Santana, and Korey Wise – endured wrongful convictions and imprisonment based on coerced confessions and racial bias (John D. Rogers Law; Touro Law Digital Commons). Their convictions were vacated in 2002 after DNA evidence and a confession from Matias Reyes proved their innocence (NYPL Blog). Despite this clear exoneration, Trump has persistently repeated false accusations against them (Atlanta Black Star). The current lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the harm caused by these renewed attacks on their character.

The lawsuit argues that Trump’s recent statements, particularly remarks made during a presidential debate, reignited the trauma of their ordeal. They claim it forced them to “clear their names all over again,” damaging reputations they worked hard to rebuild (WHYY News; CBS News New York). Trump’s team called the suit “frivolous,” banking on free speech defenses (WHYY News). Yet, for the Five, this is about more than just legal strategy; it’s about demanding accountability for decades of harmful rhetoric. Meanwhile, the men continue contributing positively, with Kevin Richardson conducting civil rights workshops and Raymond Santana engaging in political activism (CBS News New York), demonstrating resilience despite the ongoing attacks.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Darius Spearman is a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College, where he has been teaching since 2007. He is the author of several books, including Between The Color Lines: A History of African Americans on the California Frontier Through 1890. You can visit Darius online at africanelements.org.