On a Wednesday in late September, an Iowa court closed the door on a case that asked whether a newspaper's pre-election poll could be treated as fraud. The lawsuit, brought by a sitting president against the Des Moines Register, its parent company and the veteran pollster J. Ann Selzer, rested on the idea that a forecast could be a lie. The judge's answer was that forecasts are judgments woven from uncertain data, and that the freedom to make them belongs to the press. It is one more moment in a season when the powerful have tested how far the press's protections reach, and the answer, for now
Judge Dismisses Trump Suit Against Des Moines Register and Pollster Ann Selzer
Speech in the highest category of protection, stretched into fraud
Mark
Why does this ruling matter beyond one poll in Iowa?
Mimi
Because the judge's reasoning goes to the nature of a poll. He said predictions that weigh data subjectively aren't factual enough to be proven false, so they can't be fraud.
Luke
Worth noting that's one judge's ruling at the trial level. It isn't settled law yet, especially with an appeal promised.
Mark
What was Trump's actual claim?
Mimi
That the Register, Gannett and Selzer fraudulently misled readers with a poll showing Harris ahead in Iowa before the 2024 election.
Luke
And his spokesman calls it a "phony poll" knowingly run to interfere in the election. That's the team's allegation. The judge found the claims didn't fit the state fraud statutes at all.
Mark
Trump won Iowa. Does that bear on the case?
Mimi
The report notes it, but the ruling rests on the First Amendment and the fraud statutes, not on the poll's accuracy.
Luke
Right. The source doesn't say the outcome played any part in the judge's reasoning, so we shouldn't imply it did.
Mark
What else is happening with the media?
Mimi
Another judge seemed doubtful that banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House was legal.
Luke
Seemed doubtful and may rule against. No decision yet, so that remains open.
Il Polso
- A sitting president's fraud claim against a newspaper poll has collapsed in an Iowa courtroom, leaving the Register and its pollster standing.
- The suit accused the paper of publishing a 'phony poll' that showed Harris ahead, a charge that cut to the heart of trust in election reporting.
- Judge Scott Beattie found that subjective forecasts are not provably true or false, and so cannot ground a fraud claim under the First Amendment.
- Trump's team has vowed an appeal, keeping the dispute alive even as the trial-level ruling stands firmly against him.
- On the same day, a separate judge sounded skeptical of the White House ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico, and may rule against the administration.
On a Wednesday in late September, an Iowa court closed the door on a case that asked whether a newspaper's pre-election poll could be treated as fraud. The lawsuit, brought by a sitting president against the Des Moines Register, its parent company and the veteran pollster J. Ann Selzer, rested on the idea that a forecast could be a lie. The judge's answer was that forecasts are judgments woven from uncertain data, and that the freedom to make them belongs to the press. It is one more moment in a season when the powerful have tested how far the press's protections reach, and the answer, for now, has been that they reach far.
On Wednesday, an Iowa judge dismissed the lawsuit that President Donald Trump filed in late 2024 against the Des Moines Register, its parent Gannett, and longtime pollster J. Ann Selzer. The case centered on a poll published just before the election that showed Kamala Harris ahead in Iowa. Trump, who went on to win the state, argued the paper had fraudulently misled readers with a poll he called a phony.
District Judge Scott Beattie disagreed. He wrote that Trump was asking the court to treat speech at the very top of constitutional protection as if it were fraud. Forecasts and ratings, he explained, are subjective readings of objective data, and predicting uncertain events is not an exact science a publisher can be punished for getting wrong. He dismissed the case on two grounds: the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and a free press, and the fact that Trump's claims did not fit the state fraud statutes he had invoked.
Selzer was represented by the free speech group FIRE, whose chief counsel called the suit laughable from the start. Trump's personal legal team said he will appeal and repeated the charge that the paper knowingly ran a deceptive poll.
The ruling fits a broader pattern. Over his second term, Trump has pressed networks to drop programs he dislikes, asked regulators to strip broadcast licenses, filed multiple suits against news organizations, and barred some outlets from the White House. The same day, another judge seemed doubtful about that White House ban, and may rule against it.
The next moves to watch are whether the promised appeal is filed, and how the second judge decides the fate of the press access ban.
On Wednesday, an Iowa judge threw out the lawsuit that President Donald Trump filed in late 2024 against the Des Moines Register and its longtime pollster, J. Ann Selzer. District Judge Scott Beattie ruled that the poll at the center of the case, which showed Trump trailing before the 2024 election, was speech protected by the Constitution.
The suit named three defendants: the Register, its parent company Gannett, and Selzer. It concerned a poll published ahead of the November 2024 election that showed Democratic candidate Kamala Harris beating Trump in Iowa. Trump accused the newspaper and its pollster of fraudulently misleading readers.
Beattie wrote that Trump was asking the court to stretch the law so that speech in the highest category of constitutional protection could be treated as fraud. In his words, ratings, forecasts and predictions that reflect a subjective weighing of objective data points are not factual enough to be proven true or false. He added that predicting uncertain future events is not an exact science for which a publisher can be held to account.
The judge gave two grounds. First, the First Amendment, with its guarantees of free speech and a free press, barred the lawsuit. Second, Trump's claims did not fit the state fraud statutes under which he had sued.
The free speech group FIRE represented Selzer. Its chief counsel, Bob Corn-Revere, said in a statement that the court recognized what the group had maintained all along: the lawsuit was laughable from the beginning and should never have been brought.
A spokesman for Trump's personal legal team said Trump would appeal. He also said the Register and Gannett knowingly ran a "phony poll" in an unlawful attempt to interfere in the 2024 presidential election and to defraud Americans into believing Harris was winning. Trump won the election, including in Iowa.
The ruling arrived as part of a wider pattern. Reuters notes that Trump's pressure on coverage he dislikes has intensified in his second term. He has repeatedly urged broadcasters to drop news programs he dislikes, called on the Federal Communications Commission to strip disfavored broadcast stations of their licenses, filed several lawsuits against media outlets, and banned some outlets from the White House.
On the same day, another judge appeared skeptical at a hearing about whether Trump's ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House was legal. He indicated he may rule against Trump in that latest clash with the media.
Two things to watch now: whether Trump's lawyers file the promised appeal of the Iowa dismissal, and how the second judge rules on the White House ban.
Citazioni salienti
This lawsuit was laughable from the beginning and never should have been brought.— Bob Corn-Revere, FIRE chief counsel
Predicting uncertain future events is not an exact science for which a publisher may be held to account.— Judge Scott Beattie
Vuoi la storia completa?
Leggi l'originale su Reuters ↗
Politics & Governance