Iowa judge rules 2024 Des Moines Register poll protected speech, dismisses Trump lawsuit
SPEECH

Iowa judge rules 2024 Des Moines Register poll protected speech, dismisses Trump lawsuit

Sep 24, 2026Updated 12:13pm ET

An Iowa judge dismissed President Donald Trump’s fraud and consumer-deception lawsuit against the Des Moines Register and pollster J. Ann Selzer, ruling that the 2024 Iowa Poll and related coverage were protected political speech under the First Amendment.

An Iowa judge dismissed President Donald Trump’s fraud and consumer-deception lawsuit against the Des Moines Register and pollster J. Ann Selzer, ruling that the 2024 Iowa Poll and related coverage were protected political speech under the First Amendment.

Corroboration

LowMedHigh
ApnewsThe GuardianCNNABC News MediaAxiosBoston Herald

Confirmed by 20+ sources.

What This is

  • An Iowa district judge dismissed Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the Des Moines Register, its parent company, and pollster J. Ann Selzer over the final 2024 Iowa poll.
  • Trump alleged the poll and related coverage deliberately misrepresented the state of the 2024 presidential race.
  • Days before the November 2024 election, Selzer’s Iowa Poll showed Kamala Harris leading Trump 47% to 44%, though Trump ultimately won the state by more than 13 points.
  • The judge ruled the complaint did not meet the legal requirements for fraud or consumer deception under Iowa law.
  • The judge ruled that the poll and its coverage were protected political speech under the First Amendment.
  • The court dismissed all three claims with prejudice, treating the ruling as an adjudication on the merits.
  • Trump’s legal team said it plans to appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court.

Why This Matters

  • The ruling reinforces First Amendment protections for election polls and related reporting, even when their forecasts prove inaccurate.
  • It limits the use of state fraud and consumer-protection laws to challenge campaign coverage.
  • The decision recognizes that such lawsuits can chill open debate by pressuring outlets not to publish contested political information.
  • A planned appeal could let the Iowa Supreme Court define how state fraud law applies to political speech.
  • The case is an early test of Trump’s broader effort to challenge disputed media coverage through litigation.

Who else would want to know this?