The Central Park Five members are appealing to a federal judge in Pennsylvania to dismiss Donald Trump’s motion to stop the exonerated group’s defamation lawsuit against him. This legal action stems from false remarks he issued about them during a televised debate with then-Vice President Kamala Harris shortly before the 2024 election.

In a 15-page motion filed Wednesday in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the plaintiffs asserted that U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone should deny Trump’s application to stay the defamation case while the president’s appeal is decided by a panel of judges on the 3rd Circuit.

Trump is appealing an earlier ruling by Beetlestone in which she refused to dismiss the defamation suit, holding that the Central Park Five’s claims were not barred by Pennsylvania’s anti-SLAPP — or strategic lawsuit against public participation — law. Such laws are designed to prevent people from being intimidated or silenced by the threat of expensive lawsuits.

Beetlestone last month ruled that the anti-SLAPP statute — a state law called the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA) — does not apply in federal court. In his appeal, Trump asserted that the law does apply in federal court and makes him immune from the plaintiffs’ suit. The appeal further argued that because Trump is allegedly entitled to immunity, it is “mandatory” that the court grant his request for a stay pending appeal.

“In the context of absolute and Eleventh Amendment immunity, a defendant is entitled to a stay while a denial of a motion to dismiss or summary judgment based on immunity is appealed, provided the underlying immunity assertion is not frivolous,” Trump’s appeal stated. “President Trump amply demonstrates that his appeal is not frivolous.”

Attorneys for the Central Park Five pushed back on Trump’s claim that a stay in the case is mandatory, claiming the president “does not cite any relevant case for this proposition” and is conflating absolute immunity (being immune from litigation) with being statutorily immune from liability.

Clockwise from top left, Raymond Santana, Yusef Salaam, Antron McCray, Korey Wise and Kevin Richardson, known as Central Park five (AP Photo/File).

For example, a sitting president would be immune from litigation if a lawsuit were based on any official acts taken within the scope of presidential duties, regardless of the merits. On the other hand, immunity based on anti-SLAPP statutes typically requires courts to address the merits of the plaintiff’s claims.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs responded (citations omitted), saying that the 3rd Circuit has never held that immunity protecting a private litigant includes a right not to be subject to litigation.

The “immunity” conferred by UPEPA is different from absolute and public official immunity. UPEPA immunity arises only if a claim is first found to be non-meritorious either because (1) the plaintiff fails to “establish a prima facie case,” (2) the complaint fails to “state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted,” or (3) “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the [defendant] . . . is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  So immunity under UPEPA does not protect a defendant from having to litigate the merits of the underlying claim. UPEPA actually requires a merits determination. Only after the merits determination might “immunity” attach to the defendant. As such, Defendant is not entitled to a stay pending appeal based on a comparison to absolute immunity. If anything, the contrast points out exactly what a stay is not warranted in this case. UPEPA “immunity” flows from a merits determination rather than prevents that determination at the outset.

The Central Park Five further argued that granting a stay would “substantially injure” them, as it has been nearly a year since they filed their initial complaint and the president has engaged in stall tactics rather than responding to the merit of the claims.

“Plaintiffs were called murderers by the Defendant to an audience of over 67 million Americans. Plaintiffs filed suit less than six weeks after the debate to clear their names,” the filing states. “Nine months after suit was initiated, Defendant still has not filed an answer. Now Defendant seeks an indefinite stay pending a meritless appeal. ‘Justice delayed is justice denied,’ and this Court should not accommodate Defendant’s requests to delay justice.”

Trump’s age and “fading memory” are also reasons not to delay discovery, according to the plaintiffs.

“Defendant is 79 years old, and there is a serious risk that his fading memory will hinder Plaintiffs from obtaining the necessary discovery, including at his deposition, which would be highly prejudicial to Plaintiffs’ case,” plaintiffs wrote. “This is not just a hypothetical concern. Defendant has already stated in response to multiple interrogatories relating to the September 2024 presidential debate that he ‘is unable to remember specific details requested in this interrogatory.'”

The motion concluded by noting that Trump cannot argue that his current role as president factors into the court’s analysis because he has engaged in “extensive litigation” while in office.

“Indeed, civil litigation remains an ongoing priority for Defendant,” plaintiffs wrote.