Iowa judge dismisses Trump suit against Des Moines Register

Trump’s suit “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,” the judge wrote.DES MOINES, Iowa (CN) — An Iowa judge Wednesday dismissed President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the Des Moines Register and its pollster he claimed defrauded him and its readers with a last-minute poll that showed him losing in Iowa ahead of the November 2024 election. He ultimately won the state by 16 points.Trump filed suit in state court accusing the Register and pollster J. Ann Selzer of consumer fraud for Selzer’s poll published three days ahead of the Nov. 5 presidential election. U.S. Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks and former Iowa State Senator Brad Zaun were later added as plaintiffs for their own objections to the poll.Polk County District Judge Scott Beattie granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, holding that the Register is protected by the First Amendment from the plaintiffs’ claims and the fraud claims fail under the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act even if the First Amendment did not apply in this case.“This case sets a president, a member of Congress, and a former state senator against a pollster and a newspaper, and it arises out of an election. A case of that kind invites the reader to look for a political result,” Beattie wrote in his 64-page ruling. “The court’s role is narrower. It is to sit as an impartial arbiter, to apply the law without passion or prejudice, and to rule without regard to the politics of the day.”Beattie said the question before the court is whether the petition states a claim recognized by law.“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," he wrote. “After considering the parties’ arguments, the court must conclude that the protection is too great and the reach is too far. The case must therefore be dismissed.”USA Today, the owner of the Des Moines Register, applauded the ruling in a statement Wednesday.“Today is a victory for the First Amendment — and for the essential role of a free press in American democracy,” said Polly Grunfeld Sack, said USA TODAY Co. chief legal counsel. “We are gratified that the court recognized what this meritless lawsuit sought to obscure: that claims of ‘fake news’ are little more than an attempt to punish news outlets for coverage those in power do not like.”Robert Corn-Revere, chief counsel for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, who led the defense for Selzer, also praised 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,” he said in a statement. “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.”In his ruling Wednesday, Beattie disagreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that the First Amendment does not apply to this case, because both parties are private, and thus it is not about government suppression. “Under First Amendment principles, the identity of the party seeking the court to sanction speech is irrelevant,” he wrote. “What matters is whether state law, applied by a state court’s judgment, will be used to do so.”That, he said, is what the U.S. Supreme Court determined in its 1964 decision New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.“In that case, the Supreme Court set the precedent that what a State may not constitutionally accomplish through a criminal statute is likewise prohibited in its civil law, and the prospect of damage awards may inhibit speech more effectively than the threat of prosecution," Beattie said.He also disagreed with the plaintiffs’ argument the Register committed fraud by publishing what they claimed was a false poll, because he said the Register’s poll was not a provably false statement of fact. While courts have made an exception under the First Amendment for fraud, Beattie said that exception does not apply in this case because the Supreme Court has never recognized that false statements by themselves are not entitled to First Amendment protection.“Opinion polls of random samples of voters are snapshots with margins of error, and campaigns are dynamic. A statement of conjecture about a future state of affairs is not provably false, even when the speaker is alleged to have known better,” he wrote. “Ratings, forecasts, and predictions that reflect a subjective weighing of objective data points are not sufficiently factual to be susceptible to proof, and predicting uncertain future events is not an exact science for which a publisher may be held to account.”Attorneys representing plaintiffs in the suit did not return a request for comment Wednesday.Categories / Law, PoliticsSubscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads