President Donald Trump is doubling down on his claim that he has “absolute immunity” from a defamation lawsuit filed against him by members of the exonerated Central Park Five over false statements he made about them during a televised debate with then-Vice President Kamala Harris.

In an 11-page reply filed Wednesday, the president asserted he is entitled to an automatic stay in the case as an appellate court decides whether he is protected from litigation under Pennsylvania law. The filing argues that the state”s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA) — an anti-SLAPP law aimed at preventing defendants from being intimidated or silenced by the threat of expensive lawsuits — applies to the lawsuit and immunizes him against the plaintiffs’ claims.

Trump is appealing an earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone in which she refused to dismiss the defamation suit, holding that the Central Park Five’s claims were not barred by UPEPA, which is Pennsylvania’s version of an anti-SLAPP law.

“In enacting the [UPEPA], the Pennsylvania General Assembly explicitly recognized the severe chilling effect that lawsuits which target public participation have on constitutionally protected speech. To combat these abuses of the judicial process, the legislature provided defendants with substantive immunity from suit to spare them the burdens and expenses associated with meritless litigation,” Wednesday’s filing states. “Because the record demonstrates UPEPA immunity was intended to protect defendants from the burdens of litigation, and President Trump’s appeal presents a non-frivolous question, this Court should order an immediate stay.”

Beetlestone last month ruled that UPEPA does not apply in federal court. In his appeal, Trump asserted that the law must be applied in federal court, thereby making 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.

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.

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.

Trump on Wednesday argued that plaintiffs’ position “fundamentally misconstrues the statute,” claiming UPEPA “grants defendants an immediate entitlement to avoid the litigation process itself, which cannot be vindicated once Defendant is subjected to the burdens of litigation.”

“UPEPA immunity is, therefore, like that afforded to defendants under the doctrines of absolute and qualified immunity, and the Court should stay the proceedings in this case as it would in cases where such immunities are invoked,” the filing says.

The president further asserted that refusing his request to stay the proceedings while the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would establish a precedent allowing lawsuits to be filed against citizens “for merely voicing their opinions in quintessentially political discussions.”

The wrongly accused quintet sued Trump for false statements he made during last year’s presidential debate with Kamala Harris in which he said the plaintiffs “pled guilty” to the horrific 1989 attack on a Manhattan jogger and “ultimately killed a person.”

Antron McCray, Korey Wise, Kevin Richardson, and Raymond Santana gave police coerced confessions, but never pleaded guilty while Yusef Salaam did not confess or plead guilty. Additionally, no one died in the attack, which was later conclusively proven to have been committed by a man named Matias Reyes.