Judge tosses Trump’s suit against Iowa pollster
An Iowa judge dismissed former President Trump’s lawsuit against pollster J. Ann Selzer and The Des Moines Register, ruling that inaccurate pre-election polling does not amount to consumer fraud. The complaint, which challenged a poll that showed then-candidate Kamala Harris leading in Iowa, was thrown out with prejudice, preventing further filings on the same claim.
Why It Matters
The ruling underscores legal protections for pollsters and publishers under the First Amendment, limiting the ability to sue over incorrect predictions and preserving journalistic and research discretion over polling methods. It also closes a high-profile legal challenge tied to disputes over 2024 election coverage and results.
Key Facts
- Judge: Iowa District Court Judge Scott J. Beattie
- Ruling: Complaint dismissed with prejudice
- Defendants: Pollster J. Ann Selzer and The Des Moines Register
- Disputed poll result: Showed Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump in Iowa by 3 percentage points
- Actual Iowa result: Donald Trump won Iowa by 14 percentage points in the 2024 general election},{
An Iowa judge has rejected former President Donald Trump’s lawsuit accusing pollster J. Ann Selzer and The Des Moines Register of violating state consumer fraud laws over a pre-2024 election poll. In a Wednesday decision, Judge Scott J. Beattie concluded that an incorrect election prediction does not meet the legal standard for fraud under Iowa law.
Trump’s suit targeted a Selzer-conducted poll that briefly showed then-candidate Kamala Harris leading in Iowa by three percentage points, a result that contrasted with the eventual outcome in which Trump carried the state by 14 points. Plaintiffs argued the published numbers were deceptive and amounted to fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation; the court found those claims could not be sustained.
The lawsuit’s procedural history spans several years: it was first filed in state court in December 2024, moved to federal court in February 2025, then dropped by Trump before being refiled in Polk County, Iowa, during the following summer. Judge Beattie’s dismissal was entered with prejudice, barring the president from bringing the same complaint again.
J. Ann Selzer welcomed the decision, telling reporters that polling is an empirical social science rather than a prediction guaranteed in advance, and that responsible pollsters follow the data even when findings are unexpected. Trump’s attorneys did not immediately provide a comment on the ruling when contacted.
In his opinion, Judge Beattie stressed the strong First Amendment protections afforded to speech on matters such as polling and concluded that extending fraud law to cover disputed election forecasts would improperly broaden liability for protected expression. The ruling effectively affirms legal limits on claims against pollsters and media organizations for inaccurate pre-election polling.
Keep Reading
US Treasury secretary emerges as frontrunner for Trump’s AI czar role: Report
Chamber of Commerce, oil groups urge Trump to reject diesel export ban
Scaramucci: Leavitt would have told Trump not to ban media outlets
