An Iowa district judge on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit filed by Donald Trump against The Des Moines Register and pollster J. Ann Selzer. The lawsuit, filed in December 2024, alleged that the defendants misrepresented the state of the 2024 presidential race by publishing inaccurate poll results. Judge Scott J. Beattie dismissed the case with prejudice after concluding the poll and its coverage constitute protected political speech.
The legal action focused on an Iowa Poll conducted by Selzer's company in late October 2024. The results showed then-Vice President Kamala Harris leading Mr. Trump 47% to 44% among likely voters in the state. Mr. Trump won Iowa with 56% of the nearly 2 million votes cast. The lawsuit, which included Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks and former state Sen. Brad Zaun as plaintiffs, argued the poll was intentionally skewed to benefit Democrats and damaged their reputations and campaign resources.
In his ruling, Judge Beattie stated that the lawsuit attempted to turn speech enjoying "the highest category of First Amendment protection into a liability." He noted that even if the court assumed the poll was intentionally fabricated for the sake of the motion, the claims failed to meet the legal requirements for fraud or consumer deception. The judge further clarified that the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act applies only to consumer transactions and not to political polling, which he defined as political speech rather than a commercial product.
The ruling affects news organizations, pollsters, and political candidates by clarifying that polling data and its subsequent media coverage are protected by the First Amendment. For the named plaintiffs—Donald Trump, Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA), and former state Sen. Brad Zaun (R-IA)—the dismissal follows a year-long legal effort to seek damages for what they described as diminished reputations and wasted campaign funds.
The decision establishes that differences between pre-election polling and final election outcomes do not constitute legal fraud under Iowa state law. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which defended Selzer, stated the ruling reaffirms the freedom to publish information without political interference.
The dismissal sets a precedent against using consumer fraud statutes to litigate the accuracy of political reporting. Had the case proceeded, the judge noted it could have created a "chilling effect" that might discourage public debate and reporting on government affairs. The plaintiffs' personal lawyers did not immediately state whether they intend to appeal the decision.