• Ann Selzer’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss Trump’s lawsuit, calling it a violation of First Amendment rights and “artful pleading.”
• The lawsuit accuses Selzer’s poll of “fraud” and “election interference,” but her attorneys argue polls are protected political speech.
• Free speech advocacy group FIRE is defending Selzer, warning this case could set a dangerous precedent for media and free expression.

The legal team representing Iowa pollster Ann Selzer has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against her by Donald Trump. In their response, Selzer’s attorneys dismantled the claims, arguing the case is a direct assault on First Amendment rights and labeling it as “artful pleading” designed to silence free speech.

The Poll That Sparked the Controversy

The controversy began when the Des Moines Register published a poll conducted by Selzer just days before the November election. The poll showed Vice President Kamala Harris leading Trump 47% to 44% among likely voters. This result enraged Trump, who dismissed the poll as “heavily skewed” despite later winning Iowa by double digits.

In December, Trump escalated his dissatisfaction by filing a lawsuit against Selzer and the Register, claiming the poll was “fake news” and amounted to “brazen election interference.”

Trump’s Legal Claims Debunked

The lawsuit attempts to frame Selzer’s poll as a violation of Iowa’s consumer fraud laws, asserting that the poll caused “substantial injury” to voters. However, Selzer’s legal team shredded this argument as “fatally flawed,” pointing out that polls and news reports are protected forms of political speech under the First Amendment.

Citing a long-standing legal precedent, Selzer’s attorneys argued that Trump’s attempt to label political polling as “fraud” is baseless. They used an analogy to emphasize their point: just as meteorologists can’t be sued for faulty weather forecasts, pollsters cannot be punished for predictions that don’t align with actual outcomes.

First Amendment Protections Take Center Stage

Central to Selzer’s defense is the foundational principle that free speech on political issues must remain “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” The attorneys underscored that false claims like “fake news” cannot override these protections.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

The motion further criticized Trump’s demand to block the publication of alleged “deceptive polls,” calling it an unconstitutional “prior restraint” on free speech. Such a move would violate the core principles of the First Amendment, they said.

FIRE Joins Selzer’s Fight

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a leading free speech advocacy group, announced it would defend Selzer pro bono. FIRE’s attorneys described the lawsuit as “about as unconstitutional as it gets,” highlighting its danger to free speech protections nationwide.

Selzer’s legal team includes FIRE’s Robert Corn-Revere, along with Conor Fitzpatrick, Greg Greubel, and Adam Steinbaugh. Local counsel Matthew McGuire of Nyemaster Goode is also assisting.

The Inigo Montoya Moment

Selzer’s attorneys cleverly referenced Inigo Montoya, the beloved character from The Princess Bride, to rebuff the lawsuit’s misuse of the term “fraud.” They wrote, “In the famous words of Inigo Montoya…‘You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.’”

This humorous yet sharp critique emphasized the legal weakness of the claims. Polls labeled as “fake” are not fraud under Iowa law, nor do they constitute “election interference,” the attorneys explained.

No Damages, No Case

The motion also demolished the plaintiffs’ claims of damages. Trump and Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks both won their elections, and Selzer’s poll didn’t even mention Bradley Zaun, a state senator who lost. The legal team argued that the lawsuit failed to link Selzer’s actions to any plausible harm.

Additionally, they highlighted the absurdity of invoking consumer fraud laws for a poll, which is neither a product nor a service for sale. Courts have consistently rejected such misuse of these laws.

A Dangerous Precedent?

FIRE’s Corn-Revere warned that this case is part of a broader trend aimed at intimidating the media and weakening free speech protections. He described the lawsuit as an “egregious example” of government overreach and emphasized that allowing lawsuits against so-called “fake news” would undermine the bedrock principle of free expression.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

Trump’s failure to allege defamation and reliance on consumer fraud laws underscores the frivolous nature of the case. As Corn-Revere noted, “A claim for fraudulent news isn’t a thing. There was no case to be made.”

What’s Next?

Selzer’s attorneys have requested oral arguments, and the full motion to dismiss can be read here. The case has drawn national attention, and its outcome could have significant implications for free speech protections in the U.S.

What do you think about this lawsuit? Share your thoughts in the comments below! If you found this article insightful, please share it with others and visit The Dupree Report for more breaking news and analysis.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10