Iowa judge dismisses Trump lawsuit against pollster Ann Selzer

Iowa state trial court judge Scott Beattie has dismissed former President Donald Trump's lawsuit against pollster J. Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register, ruling that the challenged poll constitutes protected political speech under the First Amendment.

Background

J. Ann Selzer conducted political polls in Iowa for nearly four decades. Three days before the 2024 general election, the Des Moines Register published a Selzer poll showing Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump in Iowa and Christina Bohannan leading Mariannette Miller-Meeks in Iowa's First Congressional District. The poll proved incorrect.

Donald J. Trump, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, and Bradley Zaun sued in their private capacities, alleging violations of the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. They also sought to enjoin the publication of any further deceptive polls.

Court's Ruling

Judge Beattie granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs' claims sought to stretch Iowa law beyond its bounds and infringe on speech protected by the First Amendment.

Key Findings

On False Speech and the First Amendment:

• Falsity alone does not create a category of unprotected speech
• The Supreme Court has never recognized that false statements by themselves are not entitled to First Amendment protection
• Even knowingly false campaign speech is not excluded from constitutional protection

On the Fraud Exception:

• The fraud exception to First Amendment protection is narrow
• Proof requirements for fraud claims exist precisely to safeguard protected speech
• A false statement alone does not produce liability; the exception involves a false claim made to secure money or other valuable consideration

On the Iowa Poll Specifically:

1. Not a provably false statement of fact: A poll is an estimate based on known methodology concerning an event that has not yet happened. Opinion polls are snapshots with margins of error, and campaigns are dynamic. A statement of conjecture about a future state of affairs is not provably false.

1. No representation made to plaintiffs: No plaintiff alleged that Selzer or her company communicated with them, solicited anything from them, or had any contractual relationship with them. No plaintiff claimed they purchased the poll, subscribed to the Register because of it, or gave anything of value to any defendant because of the poll.

1. Damages insufficient to establish fraud: While plaintiffs argued they suffered damages including campaign expenditures to offset the poll, the court distinguished that harm alone does not establish that speech was used to obtain money or property from them. The court cited U.S. v. Alvarez (2012), which held that permitting liability for false speech absent evidence of gaining a material advantage would confer "a censorial power unprecedented in the Court's cases and in our constitutional tradition."

Independent State Law Grounds

The court also found that the petition stated no claim under Iowa law:

• Count I (Iowa Consumer Fraud Act): Alleged no prohibited act in connection with advertisement, sale, or lease of consumer merchandise; no ascertainable loss of money or property; and no reliance
• Count II (Fraudulent misrepresentation): Alleged no representation made to induce any plaintiff to act and no act taken in reliance on the truth of the polls
• Count III (Negligent misrepresentation): Alleged no duty running from a pollster or newspaper to a candidate

Conclusion

The court held that the Iowa Poll and its reporting are fully protected political speech, and the petition did not allege the elements required to place that speech within the fraud exception. The First Amendment bars all claims.

Robert Corn-Revere and Conor Fitzpatrick of FIRE represented Selzer.