Judge dismissed President Donald Trump’s frivolous lawsuit in Iowa

While much of the nation’s attention is on the court order restoring White House access to top media outlets, an Iowa state judge on Wednesday dismissed President Donald Trump’s frivolous lawsuit against veteran pollster J. Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register newspaper.

The decision handed down by Judge Scott J. Beattie is the latest in a string of setbacks in multiple groundless legal actions brought by Trump and his allies claiming “fake news” in a pursuit of Selzer.

“At its core, the plaintiffs’ petition seeks to stretch both Iowa statutory and common law beyond their current bounds, turning speech that enjoys the highest category of First Amendment protection into a liability,” Beattie wrote in his ruling. Selzer was represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

“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 FIRE Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere, who led Selzer’s defense. “The First Amendment does not allow anyone in government, least of all the president, to punish people under the banner of ‘fake news.’ That may work for him as a campaign slogan, but it is not a thing in the law.”

The lawsuit stemmed from a poll Selzer published before the 2024 presidential election that predicted Vice President Kamala Harris leading by three points in Iowa, where Trump ultimately won by 13 percentage points.

The Republican lawsuit asserted nonsensical claims, including under Iowa’s Consumer Fraud Act, alleging that Selzer’s poll, which missed the final result by a wide margin, constituted “fake news” and “fraud.”

Selzer pushed back. FIRE explained that commentary about a political election is core protected speech. “Fake news” is a political buzzword, not a legal cause of action.

And Trump should know that “fraud” is a defined legal concept: intentionally lying to convince someone to part with something of value, since he paid $25 million to settle allegations involving Trump University, was ordered to pay $2 million over misuse of his charitable foundation, was found civilly liable for persistently inflating asset values and falsifying financial statements, and was convicted on 34 felony counts of lying on business records to conceal a $130,000 payoff to porn star Stormy Daniels.

But let’s be clear about one thing: This was never about “consumer fraud.” Nor was it about winning in court. Trump’s lawsuit was about intimidating perceived critics into silence by making them waste time and money on lawyers to defend perfectly legal speech.

It’s called a “SLAPP” suit — a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

Such tactical claims are filed purely for the purpose of imposing punishing litigation costs on perceived opponents, not because they have any merit or stand any chance of success. In other words, the lawsuit is the punishment.

It’s part of a worrying trend of activists and officials using consumer fraud lawsuits to target political speech they don’t like.

Iowa has since passed an anti-SLAPP statute, which makes the loser who files a frivolous suit pay the defendant’s attorneys’ fees, but Trump purposefully filed this lawsuit just hours before it took effect.

But Trump didn’t count on FIRE. To offset the costs, FIRE is representing Selzer pro bono.

A copycat class-action lawsuit based on the same flimsy legal arguments was dismissed by a federal district court in November. In addition to Trump, other plaintiffs include Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks and former state Sen. Brad Zaun, who was appointed by Trump to serve in the Small Business Administration.

Since the poll’s release, Selzer acknowledged the margin between her poll and the eventual outcome and did what good pollsters do: She explained her methodology and publicly shared the poll’s crosstabs (results reported out by demographic and attitudinal subgroups), its questionnaire (with demographic information and weighted and unweighted responses), and her theories on the results, inviting others to offer theirs in turn. 

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

Trump’s record includes multiple cases involving fraud, deception or falsified records:

• he agreed to a $25 million settlement of lawsuits alleging that Trump University defrauded students with false representations about its real estate programs, without admitting wrongdoing;
• he admitted misuse of charitable assets in the case that resulted in the dissolution of the Donald J. Trump Foundation and a court order requiring him to pay $2 million to charities;
• he was found liable in New York for persistent fraud involving deceptive financial statements that inflated asset values and his net worth to obtain favorable loans and other business benefits, a liability finding subsequently upheld on appeal even though the appellate court overturned the massive disgorgement penalty as an excessive fine; and,
• after being indicted in 2023, he was convicted by a Manhattan jury in 2024 on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records for disguising reimbursements connected to a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels as ordinary legal expenses as part of what prosecutors alleged was an effort to conceal damaging information from voters before the 2016 election.