An Iowa state court dismissed Donald Trump’s lawsuit against pollster J. Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register. Ann Selzer and The Des Moines Register. Ann Selzer and The Des Moines Register on Wednesday, September 23, 2026. Judge Scott J. Beattie ruled that political polling and news coverage constitute constitutionally protected speech rather than commercial products or consumer fraud.
Judge Beattie Dismisses Consumer Fraud Claims
The lawsuit centered on a late-October poll conducted by Selzer’s company that predicted Vice President Kamala Harris leading by three points in Iowa. After the election concluded with Donald Trump winning the state with 56% of the vote—substantially higher than the poll’s final figures—Trump filed a complaint in Polk County, Iowa, in December 2024. The legal action accused the pollster, the newspaper, and parent company Gannett Co. of fraudulently publishing inaccurate poll results to damage him and help Democrats, saying coverage of polls is not protected speech under the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act.
Iowa District Judge Scott J. Beattie rejected those arguments outright. In his ruling, the judge stated that the legal challenge sought to stretch both statutory and common law beyond established boundaries. He emphasized that treating political speech as a liability would undermine core constitutional protections.
In essence, the legal filing by the plaintiffs attempts to push Iowa common and statutory law past their established limits, transforming speech safeguarded by the highest level of First Amendment protection into a basis for legal liability.
Judge Scott J. Beattie, Iowa District Court
The court determined that the poll and its publication were exercises of free speech rather than commercial transactions. Beattie noted that each of the three counts failed even when evaluating the case by assuming, solely for the purpose of the motions, that the polling data had been intentionally skewed.
Free Speech Protections and the Chilling Effect
Legal representation for Selzer was provided by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Bob Corn-Revere, chief counsel for the organization, who led Selzer’s defense, said: 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.
Corn-Revere added: 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.
Judge Beattie echoed similar concerns regarding the broader implications for public discourse. He warned that allowing the lawsuit and its “faulty” claims to proceed could have a chilling effect that can discourage others from reporting on and debating public affairs.
Permitting such a legally flawed claim to move forward imposes a burden absent in standard litigation, seeing as its defense may deter other individuals from engaging in the discussion and coverage of public matters.
Judge Scott J. Beattie, Iowa District Court
In December 2024, Trump initiated legal action against Selzer, The Des Moines Register, and the publication’s parent company, alleging they intentionally disseminated false polling figures to injure his campaign and assist Democrats, while asserting that poll reporting lacks protected status. The decision on Wednesday emerged shortly after a judge heard arguments—without issuing an immediate verdict—concerning Trump’s exclusion of CNN, MS Now, and Politico from White House premises. Trump banned the three outlets, assailing what he called “fake news.”
Pollster Response and Legal Precedents
The decision handed down by Judge Scott J. Beattie represents the most recent addition to a sequence of legal setbacks in various proceedings initiated by Trump and his supporters alleging “fake news” during their unfounded pursuit of Selzer. Trump and his legal team have launched multiple suits targeting media companies over alleged bias, thereby challenging the limits of press freedoms and general free speech protections. Some of those lawsuits have ended in settlements.
Following Wednesday’s court decision in Iowa, a representative for Trump’s legal counsel announced that the president plans to appeal the matter to the Iowa Supreme Court.
