General

Iowa Judge Dismisses Trump's Lawsuit Against Des Moines Register

The New York Times · September 24, 2026

Key takeaways

An Iowa judge dismissed Trump's consumer fraud lawsuit against the Des Moines Register, Gannett, and pollster J. Ann Selzer over a 2024 pre-election poll.
The ruling leaned on First Amendment protections, finding that inaccurate polling isn't the same as fraud.
The decision reinforces legal precedent shielding media outlets and pollsters from liability over good-faith, if incorrect, election predictions.

What Happened

An Iowa judge has dismissed President Trump's lawsuit against The Des Moines Register, its parent company Gannett, and veteran pollster J. Ann Selzer. The suit stemmed from a widely discussed pre-election poll that showed Kamala Harris with a surprise lead in Iowa just days before the 2024 election — a result that didn't match how the state actually voted. Trump's legal team argued the poll amounted to consumer fraud and election interference, but the judge ruled that publishing polling data, even data that turns out to be wrong, is protected speech and not a legally actionable deception.

Why This Case Mattered

This wasn't just about one poll. Trump's lawsuit was widely seen as a test case for whether a political figure could use consumer protection law to punish media outlets and pollsters for inaccurate predictions. Polls are inherently imperfect — they're snapshots based on methodology, sampling, and probability, not guarantees. Treating a missed forecast as "fraud" would have opened the door to lawsuits every time a poll, forecast, or projection didn't pan out, which is a pretty regular occurrence in the polling industry.

The Legal Reasoning

The judge's dismissal leaned heavily on First Amendment protections that shield news organizations and pollsters from liability over good-faith reporting and analysis, even when it's later proven inaccurate. Courts have generally been reluctant to let plaintiffs use fraud or deception statutes as a backdoor way around free speech protections for journalism. Selzer, whose polling had a strong track record before the 2024 miss, had already stepped back from election polling following the fallout.

What Happens Next

Trump's legal team could appeal the ruling, and given the pattern of similar lawsuits filed against media organizations in recent years, this likely won't be the last word on the subject. But for now, the dismissal reinforces a long-standing legal principle: being wrong isn't the same as being fraudulent, and predictions — political or otherwise — carry inherent uncertainty that courts aren't in the business of punishing after the fact.

Why Readers Should Care

This case sits at the intersection of media law, political power, and how much room journalists and pollsters have to be transparent about uncertainty without facing legal retaliation. It's a reminder that free press protections extend beyond straight news reporting into polling, forecasting, and analysis — even when the numbers don't hold up.

Why it matters

This ruling protects journalists and pollsters from being sued every time a prediction misses the mark, preserving space for honest reporting even when the numbers are wrong. It's a key marker for press freedom heading into future election cycles.