A judge in Iowa on Wednesday dismissed President Trump’s lawsuit against The Des Moines Register, which published a poll of Iowans before the 2024 election that showed him trailing Kamala Harris, then the vice president.
Mr. Trump filed the lawsuit in December 2024, after winning the presidency, and Iowa, as he escalated his threats of retribution against the mainstream media and his political enemies.
His lawsuit accused the pollster J. Ann Selzer, her polling firm, The Des Moines Register and Gannett, the newspaper’s parent company, of “brazen election interference” for a poll published shortly before the election that showed Ms. Harris leading Mr. Trump in Iowa by three points.
Though Mr. Trump won in Iowa by double digits, Ms. Selzer’s poll had galvanized Democrats about their prospects in deep-red Iowa and prompted theories about how women might be rejecting the former president in his race against Ms. Harris.
Mr. Trump’s lawsuit, filed in Polk County, also accused Ms. Selzer of violating the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act, which prohibits deceptive practices in advertising. Joining Mr. Trump in his lawsuit was Representative Mariannette Jane Miller-Meeks and former State Senator Bradley Zaun, both Iowa Republicans.
Ms. Miller-Meeks secured her third term in 2024. Mr. Zaun was not included in any polls, according to the ruling.
The plaintiffs criticized Ms. Selzer’s poll as “political theater” and said The Register had published the poll to “grab national and international headlines,” according to court documents.
Judge Scott J. Beattie of the State District Court said that the case “involves a speech on a matter of public interest and concern” and that allowing such a lawsuit to proceed could discourage others from “reporting and debating public affairs.”
Judge Beattie rejected Mr. Trump lawyer’s argument that the First Amendment had no relevance in the case, and said that election polling had constitutional protection.
“Reporting such a poll during a presidential and congressional election year is speech about a matter of public concern, occupying the summit of the pyramid of First Amendment values,” he said. “The First Amendment has its fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a campaign for political office.”
Judge Beattie dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, meaning the lawsuit cannot be refiled.
Lawyers for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, who are representing Ms. Selzer, hailed the ruling.
“We’re pleased that the court recognized what we’ve said all along: This lawsuit was laughable from the beginning and never should have been brought,” said Bob Corn-Revere, a lawyer for FIRE. “The First Amendment does not allow anyone in government, least of all the president, to punish people under the banner of ‘fake news.’”
In a statement, a spokesman for Mr. Trump’s legal team said the president was committed to holding those responsible who “traffic in deception and fake news.” He said the president would appeal the decision to the Iowa Supreme Court.
Ms. Selzer, who received bipartisan acclaim for her work, predicted successes for Republicans and Democrats across nearly four decades. She created nearly every poll published by The Des Moines Register from 1987 to November 2024.
Ms. Selzer pinpointed Mr. Trump’s win over Hillary Clinton in 2016. She also forecast Barack Obama’s 2008 victory in the Iowa Democrat caucuses.
Before 2024, Ms. Selzer also wrongly predicted that John Kerry, a Democrat, would clinch Iowa over then-President George W. Bush. Mr. Bush won the state narrowly.
Ms. Selzer retired after the 2024 election, a decision that was long planned, she said.
In a statement released Wednesday, Ms. Selzer underscored the need to follow the numbers.
“Polling is a social science, not clairvoyance, and no responsible pollster can guarantee an election outcome,” Ms. Selzer said in the statement. “What we can guarantee is that we will follow the data wherever it leads, even when the results are uncomfortable or unexpected. I am grateful that Judge Beattie’s ruling recognizes these principles and reaffirms the fundamental freedom to pursue and publish the truth without political interference.”
Media experts previously expressed doubts about Mr. Trump’s decision to invoke Iowa’s consumer fraud law, and saw the novel legal strategy as a way to skirt around defamation laws that require a high legal barrier to prevail.
Also on Wednesday, in another case related to Mr. Trump’s battles against the news media, a federal judge in Washington heard arguments over the Trump White House’s ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico. Mr. Trump barred the news organizations from the White House last week over their reporting in a longstanding effort to retaliate against journalists.
Sheelagh McNeill contributed research.
