Judge Dismisses Trump’s Lawsuit Against Des Moines Register Over 2024 Poll Data

An Iowa District Judge on Wednesday dismissed President Trump’s lawsuit accusing The Des Moines Register and former pollster J. Ann Selzer of misrepresenting the 2024 presidential race. The ruling rejected the president’s allegation that the newspaper’s poll coverage violated Iowa’s consumer fraud law, with Judge Scott J. Beattie describing the case as extraordinary and potentially harmful to free speech.

Beattie cautioned that permitting the lawsuit to proceed could have a chilling effect on the press, discouraging others from reporting on and debating public affairs. The judge sided with Selzer and the newspaper, who characterized the legal action as a conspiracy theory and an affront to First Amendment protections.

The decision arrived shortly after another judicial hearing, where a judge heard arguments but did not issue a ruling on a separate matter involving Trump’s ban of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from White House grounds. Trump had banned the outlets beginning Friday, labeling them “fake news.”

Trump initiated the Iowa lawsuit in December 2024, naming Selzer, The Des Moines Register, and its parent company as defendants. He alleged they fraudulently published inaccurate poll data to damage his campaign and aid Democratic candidates, arguing that poll coverage should not be shielded by free speech protections. Trump has filed multiple similar suits against media organizations recently, testing the boundaries of press freedom.

In dismissing the case in state court, Beattie wrote that the suit attempted to stretch Iowa statutory and common law beyond acceptable limits. He concluded that converting speech under the highest tier of First Amendment protection into legal liability was untenable. The judge noted the constitutional protection was too significant to allow the case to move forward.

Beattie emphasized that the dismissal was warranted even if the court were to assume, solely for the purpose of evaluating motions, that the poll was intentionally skewed and results fabricated. Under that assumption, the judge found that each of the three counts still failed because the lawsuit did not satisfy the legal requirements for fraud or consumer deception. He clarified that the poll and its coverage constitute constitutionally protected political speech rather than a commercial product.

The White House referred inquiries to Trump’s personal lawyers, who did not immediately respond. Selzer’s defense was supported by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech advocacy group. In a statement, Selzer expressed gratitude for the ruling, calling it a reaffirmation of the fundamental freedom to pursue and publish the truth without political interference.

“Polling is a social science, not clairvoyance, and no responsible pollster can guarantee an election outcome,” Selzer said.

Republican Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks and former Iowa state Sen. Brad Zaun joined the lawsuit. Despite efforts by Selzer and co-defendants to move the case to federal court, the first hearing took place in state court this year after a year of legal proceedings.

The contested poll, conducted by Selzer’s firm in late October and released just days before Election Day 2024, indicated that then-Vice President Kamala Harris held a lead over Trump among Iowa likely voters, with 47% to Trump’s 44%. Trump ultimately won the state, capturing 56% of the nearly 2 million votes cast.

The president, Miller-Meeks, and Zaun had argued that the misleading coverage diminished their reputations, wasted valuable time during the final days of the campaign, and depleted campaign funds and resources.