Judge tosses Trump’s suit against Iowa pollster

An Iowa judge has tossed President Trump’s lawsuit against pollster J. Ann Selzer and The Des Moines Register over polling numbers they published days before the 2024 general elections.

In a Wednesday ruling, Iowa District Court Judge Scott J. Beattie went against Trump’s claims that the poll, which showed former Vice President Kamala Harris leading him in the Hawkeye State by 3 percentage points, violated state consumer fraud laws. Though Trump won Iowa by 14 points, the judge determined their inaccurate prediction did not constitute fraud.

“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,” Beattie’s ruling reads.

“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,” he added.

Trump originally filed the lawsuit in state court in December 2024, which was moved to federal court in February 2025 before he subsequently dropped the case. That summer, the president then refiled an almost identical complaint in Polk County, Iowa. His lawyers argued the poll data was “deceptive,” violating state laws surrounding fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation.

The judge’s Wednesday dismissal against Trump’s complaint was done with prejudice, meaning the president cannot bring forth the case again.

In a Wednesday statement, Seltzer commended the ruling, saying, “Polling is a social science, not clairvoyance, and no responsible pollster can guarantee an election outcome.”

“What we can guarantee is that we will follow the data wherever it leads, even when the results are uncomfortable or unexpected. I am grateful that Judge Beattie’s ruling recognizes these principles and reaffirms the fundamental freedom to pursue and publish the truth without political interference.”

Trump’s attorneys did not immediately respond to The Hill’s request for comment on the decision.